From: sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Loren Finkelstein, please clarify.
Date: 12 Dec 92 01:36:08 GMT
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

In article <11DEC92.17172495@vax.clarku.edu> lfinkelstein@vax.clarku.edu writes:
#In a previous article, sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin) wrote:
##I guess someone has to break it to you - no one here can read your mind.
##No one here is required to read every article that you post.  No one
##here is required to discuss only the topics which you want to discuss.
#
#Is the concept of an apology so foreign to you that you don't know what it 
#means?  I APOLOGIZED for not phrasing my question correctly so that it would 
#accurately relfect what I wanted to know.  I admitted that I was wrong to 
#think that you had been following the thread, and I restated the question as I 
#originally meant it.  

He's not just ignorant, he's stupid, too.

I'll go into tedious detail.  Perhaps you'll understand this time.
I won't be explaining it to you again.  

Threads evolve, Finkelstein.  People can read an article and
reply to any piece of it or to the entire article.  They are
not required to stick to the subject of your choosing.  If
you don't want to discuss the new topic, no one will force
you to do so.

You accused me of using an invalid example before you admitted
that you'd phrased the question incorrectly.  I simply pointed
out that you had, in fact, used the wrong tense.  So did a
few other people.  It's boring to hear you continue to whine
about it.

##(1)  Not all laws are decided by a vote from 
##the majority of the electorate.  Very few are.  Many decisions are
##made by courts, and most of the rest by legislative bodies.
#
#Which are elected by a vote of the majority.  Ultimately, all laws are in the 
#hands of the majority.  They vote for polititians who will represent their 
#views when making the laws.  It may not be direct, but it is the majorities 
#wishes that are ulitimately carried out.

I can see that it's going to require more effort that I think you're
worth to correct each of your errors.  

Legislative bodies are elected.  Some judges are.  (Not all judges
are, though.)  As others have pointed out, your claims that the
wishes of the "majority" are ultimately carried out is also
incorrect.  No doubt you'll now claim that by majority, you
meant the majority of people who voted in that particular election.
I hope not.  Then, someone would have to point out that the number
of people who voted for the legislators who voted in favor of a given
law is not necessarily larger than the number of people who voted
for the legislators who voted against it.  

I guess it's too much to ask that you take a high school civics class 
before making any more claims about the subject.

##(2)  People
##who are rushing someone to the hospital don't get speeding tickets,
##as a general rule.  Those who do aren't convicted.  There's such
##a thing as the necessity defense.
#
#And, If abortion was illegal, then maybe the 14 year old rape victim could use 
#the necessity defense.

No, the defense doesn't mean, "I needed to do it."  It's a specific
defense.  Look it up.

#The necessity defense is there because all cases are different, and there may 
#be cases when breaking the law is justified by the circumstances.  That 
#doesn't mean the law should be eliminated.  It only means that the necessity 
#defense is a necessity in a world that is not black and white, but filled with 
#greys.

No, it's not there because "all cases are different."  I don't think
that you have any idea what the defense entails.  

You asserted that the fact that someone might have to speed in
order to take someone else to the hospital is no reason to do
away with speed limits.  I agree that it's not, because there
is a recognized legal defense for such an action.  You leapt on
that, and tried to generalize that there is a recognized legal
exception to an unspecified anti-abortion law.  Your argument
at this point is so vague as to be incomprehensible.

I'll let someone else waste their time on you for now.  I greatly
prefer idiots who have some entertainment value to dull ones.

Susan