From: chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney)
Subject: Re: Dodge _THIS_...
Organization: California State University: Sacramento
Distribution: world  
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 1992 20:54:07 GMT

In article <1992Aug13.005840.139822@cs.cmu.edu> kck+@cs.cmu.edu (Karl Kluge) writes:
>> In article <1992Aug12.035742.239632@cs.cmu.edu> kck+@cs.cmu.edu 
>> (Karl Kluge) royally steps in it:  
>
>I'll leave that for wiser minds than yours to judge...

Oh, great, now you've eliminated the entire pro-choice contingent on
USENET. I suspect you'll have already gotten some angry e-mail from
Pat Roby/Humphrey.  

>> >> 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
>> >> 
>> >> 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.
>> 
>> 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: 
>
>BINGO! Congratulations. You said the key phrase. "*If* the *minor* has the
>right to privacy..."
>
>> A- Privacy
>> B- Adult/child sexual relations
>> C- Abortion 
>> 
>> A->B
>> A->C
>
>Do you really think that those of us reading your post are so stupid that
>having seen you say "Jerry Lockett of Florida based his ruling, which
>invalidates statutory rape laws, on the right to privacy WHICH INVALIDATED
>PARENTAL CONSENT ABORTION LAWS" they are going to accept your transformation
>of the issue of parental consent for abortions for minors into abortion
>rights in general? Do you really think people reading your post are so
>stupid that having seen you say "if the minor has a right to privacy" they
>are going to accept your transformation of that into the right to privacy as
>it applies to adults? Your A, B, and C, based on your own statements, should
>be:

Listen up, in case it hasn't hit you yet: 
My "transformation of the issue of parental consent" was a logical
analysis. Abortions for minors is a subset of abortion rights in
general, a subset which Bill Clinton and the majority of the
pro-aborts support. This, also, is one of the things which the majority
of Americans do _not_ want to see, and your efforts to destroy
parental rights (which means the right to keep a daughter from having
an abortion as much as it means the right to keep a daughter or son
from going to a football game), is in effect like pissing into the 
wind: it's going to come back in your face if President Bush has
any sense to him regarding talking about parental consent during his
campaign.  

For you to have any basis whatsoever to overturn parental consent,
that basis has also led to the right of adults to have sex with minors
if the minors consent. Now, that's no longer pissing into the wind -
that's pissing into a hurricane!  

>A -- Minors are entitled to exercise the right of privacy at the same level
>as adults.
>
>B. -- Minors are competent to give consent to sex with an adult.
>
>C. -- Minors are competent to give consent to an abortion without parental
>consent.

B and C are dependent on A. 
A lot of people are going to have a problem with C, and a lot _more_
people are going to have a major problem with B. 

It may be necessary for them to go and rip out A, thus wiping out the
foundation for B and C. 

By that time, pro-choicers should have dug themselves an adequate hole
for a political bomb shelter. They'll need it.  

>Which means that your statement above "According to Judge Lockett, to have
>abortion rights, you must invalidate statutory rape laws" is incorrect.

No, my statement is, their intepretation of the right to privacy was
so wrong in the first place that if people don't see it in abortion
cases, they'll come to see it clearly in how it's interpreted to
legalize adult/child sex. Which points back to altering the privacy
rulings. 

That means pro-aborts have to protect adult/child sex as much as
abortion because they have to protect privacy as it is currently
interpreted, which is the only way in the universe that either things
could be legal. 

Which means, pro-choice must defend adult/child sex either directly,
or indirectly, at its roots, because their roots are common. 

Which means, you're incorrect. 

FACT: Abortion was legalized on the right to privacy. 
FACT: Adult/Child sex was legalized on the same thing. 
FACT: !Privacy (as interpreted) = !legal abortion and !legal adult/child sex. 
FACT: Legal adult/child sex is grossly opposed by probably 240 million
      Americans (out of 250 m). 
FACT: To remove that which 240 million Americans oppose, you have to
      remove privacy as it was interpreted by the Supreme Court, and
      alter it so that adult/child sex is unable to be legalized under
      any conditions. 
FACT: Legal abortion will be severely compromised and possibly
      destroyed as a result. 

Do you need any clearer an explanation? 


===============================================================================
		  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. 

Alias Borgie Boy, the BorgBarian, Inturdgent, Propeller Boy, and other
scornful names heaped upon me during my lifetime...

Newsgroups: talk.abortion