From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: "Snapple" Anti-Choice?
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 03:08:41 GMT

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) writes:
>> In article <1992Oct04.070955.166064@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.IBM.com write
>> >In  <1992Oct3.180259.402@rotag.mi.org>  kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes
>> >> In article <1992Sep29.174017.20251@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.ibm.com wri
>> >> >Hint - it's not 3 inches of air separating the fetus from becoming a child.
>> >> >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? The one who is claiming a general
principle (i.e. you), or the one who is skeptical (i.e. me)? You won't see
ME trying to introduce this lame self-defense analogy to the abortion issue,
so why on earth do you think I have an obligation to prove anything one way
or the other?

>> >> 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_?

>> >> Please stop citing this aberration as if it were a relevant, established
>> >> legal principle, Larry.
>> >
>> >I don't think it's an aberration; I feel it *is* relevant, and it is an
>> >established legal principle in New York.
>>
>> Then you are stretching the notion of "established legal principle", Larry.
>> I'm talking about legal principles going back centuries -- if I'm not
>> mistaken, the "make my day" exceptions go back a few decades at most.
>
>We're talking about rape, not "make my day".

I'm using the phrase generically to cover _all_ exceptions in the manslaughter
laws for the use of deadly force in self-defense against a non-deadly threat,
whether rape-related or not.

>> >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 have no interest in getting sidetracked.
>>
>> Since you're the one who keeps making the analogy to self-defense-against-
>> rape, you're hardly in a position to whine about getting sidetracked. This
>> is YOUR sidetrack -- either stop using it, or be prepared to defend it.
>
>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.

>> >The point,
>> >which I think my analogy made quite well, is that those 3 inches are the
>> >body of another person, which certainly *is* a meaningful separation.
>>
>> I agree with the principles of Bodily Autonomy, Larry. I've approached the
>> abortion issue from that angle for a long time now. But, as a technical
>> matter, deadly-force-as-self-defense-against-rape is *NOT* a valid legal
>> analogy.
>
>In your opinion.  

If you don't believe ME, Larry, misc.legal is just a couple of newsgroups
down the hall. I'm sure the regulars will be glad to set you straight on this 
point...

								- Kevin
Newsgroups: talk.abortion