From: chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Florida's privacy ruling (was: Re: some gods ...)
Date: 15 Aug 92 21:51:57 GMT
Organization: California State University: Sacramento

In article <1992Aug13.234712.17752@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.ibm.com writes:
>In  <1992Aug13.163513.26063@csus.edu>  chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
>> In article <1992Aug12.202927.26253@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.ibm.com writes
>> >In  <1992Aug12.164927.22851@csus.edu>  chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Cha
>> >> In article <1992Aug12.035320.30173@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.IBM.com wri
>> >> >In  <1992Aug12.015502.23325@csus.edu>  chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A
>>
>> If the kid's not intoxicated or mentally retarded, it's okay in
>> Florida for them to have illicit relationships with adults.
>
>But if a person (minor or not) engages in sex, but is considered to be
>incapable of giving consent due to intoxication or mental retardation,
>it *is* statutory rape.  My example was presented to get it through
>your thick skull that there are still statutory rape laws in effect in
>Florida.

Translation: You delayed the inevitable. 

>> Well, the "pro-choice -> legal adult/child sex"
>> scenario is no scenario - it's a Florida court ruling.
>
>Still wrong.

Unless you're saying right to privacy != pro-choice, then yes, I am
right.

But if right to privacy = pro-choice, then pro-choice -> adult/child
sex (legal), and pro-choice -> abortion (legal) 

>> You remind me of a rat who knows they took a bad turn and that within
>> a few meters, they'll be cornered. You keep running semantically from
>> the facts, hoping I'll slip somewhere. NOT.
>
>I'm still waiting for you to provide any evidence that
>"pro-choice -> legal adult/child sex".

I just did. 

>> You know as well as anyone
>> else that in Florida, they stuck legal adult/child sex on the same
>> _EXACT_ bandwagon as legal abortion,
>
>Yes, Judge Lockett placed legal adult/child sex on the same bandwagon
>as legal abortion.  But that in no way implies that supporting the former
>means supporting the latter.

Oh, yes it does. It's riding on your bandwagon, so in order to
distance yourself away from it, you have to kick it off. 

But the judge reserved adult/child sex a legal seat right next to
legal abortion, so you now have to stop the whole thing and switch
bandwagons. 

Unfortunately for you, there is no other legal defense for abortion,
other than privacy as it is presently intepreted.   


Your problem is not C -> B, but rather, A !-> adult/child sex (legal)
means A !-> abortion (legal). 

In other words, you can't have what justifies legal abortion, unless
you have what justifies legal adult/child sex. And the "what
justifies" has now proven to be quite problematic in how it's
interpreted. 

You may now say Hi to the American People. May you have adequate
political life insurance - in other words, a healthy post-job pension
for all those politicians who must ride on the same bandwagon as
adult/child sex as Americans RPG it from ballot boxes all over the
country... 


===============================================================================
		  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