From: vengeanc@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.abortion
Subject: Re: control
Date: 27 Jan 93 22:51:41 GMT
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana

mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:

>In article <C1C2s2.III@news.cso.uiuc.edu> vengeanc@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu () writes:
>>mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:
>>
>>>In article <1993Jan23.210053.38071@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:
>>>>[Note:  Simmonds' post hasn't yet shown up here, but since I've seen not only
>>>>Mark's response, but a followup to Mark from Simmonds that ended with:
>>>>   still waiting for Mr. Margolis to answer
>>>>I'm going to reply to Mark's post and assume nothing (significant) was deleted
>>>>by Mark.]
>>>>
>>>Larry, Larry, Larry...
>>>Read his stuff some more. I could have deleted the entire message
>>>without deleting anything 'significant'...
>>
>>>>I agree with Mark that the scenario is nonsensical.  In addition, the
>>>>following is incorrect:
>>>>>>knocked out (read: is no longer sentient)
>>>>
>>>>since "sentient" refers to *capability*.  A person retains their
>>>>capacity for thought when unconscious, even though they may not
>>>>be exercising that capability at the moment; contrast this with
>>>>an embryo which lacks the capability.
>>>>
>>>>*Has* he violated anyone's rights?  Not intentionally or consciously
>>>>(again, different from a non-sentient fetus or embryo, which *can't*
>>>>intentionally or consciously do *anything*).  *Is* he violating anyone's
>>>>rights?  Yes - he's violating the woman's right to bodily autonomy.
>>>>
>>>>Now I've got one for you.  A man is walking through Central Park, minding
>>>>his own business, when someone shoots him with a dart gun, administering
>>>>a hypnotic drug, and orders him to go out and rape the next woman that
>>>>he sees.
>>>>
>>>>Is the man "innocent" or "guilty"?
>>>>
>>>He's guilty, if he commits the act of rape. He may get off on the
>>>legal aspect if he can prove he was not in control of his mind, but
>>>he's still guilty of the act. My understanding is that 'not guilty by
>>>reason of insanity' is the same as 'guilty, but not really his
>>>fault'.
>>
>>>>Does the woman have the right to kill him if necessary to prevent her
>>>>body from being violated?
>>
>>>Yup, sure does, as far as I'm concerned. But Eddie doesn't care about
>>>women, his only concern is the fetus. He's said so, and given us no
>>>reason to believe that he was anything less then 100% serious.
>>
>>If you could read you would note that I said that saving the unborn
>>is my PRIMARY concern, not only concern.  Ever considered using
>>"Hooked on Phonics"?  I would strongly suggest it.
>>
>>Edward Simmonds- standard disclaimers, wondering why Mr. Cochran felt
>>		 like his input was desired in the conversation in
>>		 the first place.  
>>
>It's called an 'open forum' for a reason, 'vengeance'. Anyone is free
>to reply to anything posted here. Is your control fetish now extending
>to attempting to control what others post?
>That would be typical.
>And incidentially, what you *said* was 
>'I see no reason to even discuss the medical implications. The life of
>the fetus is the issue.'

>That's pretty clear exactly what your concern is, isn't it
>'vengeance'?
>Or are you now prepared to backpedal and retract that statement?

Nope.  I'll reaffirm that statement with reference to the morality
of abortion.  I see no reason how the relatively low mortality rates
of either abortion or pregnancy should have any bearing on whether or
not the act of killing unborn babies is wrong.  

>--
>                  Mark Cochran          merlin@eddie.ee.vt.edu
>These are the views of my employer, your employer, your government, the
>Church of your choice, and the Ghost of Elvis. So there.
>Member, T.S.A.K.C.


Edward Simmonds- standard disclaimers