From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: Blackmun calls the Roe v. Wade dividing line ""arbitrary""
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1993 02:12:04 GMT

In article <1993Jan15.194015.15418@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:
>In <1993Jan15.172003.10270@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>>In article <1993Jan12.204434.21549@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:
>>>In <markp.726855013@joplin.wri.com> markp@joplin.wri.com (Mark Pundurs) writes:
>>>>In <1993Jan12.073021.5818@netcom.com> ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
>>>>
>>>>>As is the case with pregnancy.  May a woman therefore act towards the
>>>>>fetus as she would a rapist?
>>>>
>>>>There's plenty of time to determine whether a fetus threatens your
>>>>life; only seconds to determine whether a rapist does.
>>>
>>>It's not necessary to believe that the rapist threatens your life.
>>
>>Please specify the legal jurisdictions in which you know for a fact that the
>>above statement is true.
>
>Everywhere, since I didn't mention law.  The question was, "May a woman
>act towards the fetus as she would a rapist?".  

So what kind of non-legalistic interpretation do you give to "the way to
treat a rapist"?

>Mark sidestepped it by
>bringing up the question of whether the rapist threatened the woman's
>life.  

It's not a "sidestep", it's the core of the issue. Ray introduced the rape
analogy as an example of a non-lethal threat which is treated almost as 
seriously as a lethal one. Mark disputed whether rape can truly be 
considered non-lethal.

>Whether he does or not is irrelevant to the woman's actions in
>preventing herself from being violated.  

From a legal point of view, it is very relevant.

>I realize that you mighty be upset because you couldn't find any jurisdictions
>where the use of deadly force wasn't legally justified to stop a rape, but
>please try not to drag in your pet peeves where they're not relevant.

I haven't found any, because I haven't bothered to look, Larry. But then, the
burden of proof isn't on ME. It's on those, like you and Ray Fischer, who keep 
bringing up rape analogies in an abortion group.

>First Mark said rape is not OK even if the woman's life is not threatened,

But added the proviso that in cases of rape, "often it is [threatened]"...

>then, when asked if the woman could act towards the fetus as she would towards
>a rapist, he brought up the question of whether her life was threatened.
>I simply pointed out that that's not relevant to the question.

No, no, no. You haven't been following things very carefully. Ray presented
rape as an example of a non-lethal threat to which a woman was allowed "to 
act" as if it were a lethal threat (self-defense implied). Mark disputes 
whether rape is really considered "a non-lethal threat", since it is often 
accompanied by murder, or serious injury, and, besides, given the exigencies 
of the situation, it's reasonable for the woman to _assume_ that the threat 
is lethal, even if it isn't. The whole _crux_ of the discussion is whether 
rape is treated as "a lethal threat" or not. That's not a "sidestep". Stop 
trying to hijack the discussion off into irrelevancy-land.

								- Kevin
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc,talk.religion.misc,misc.legal