From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: "Snapple" Anti-Choice?
Date: Wed, 07 Oct 1992 23:17:38 GMT
Reply-To: margoli@watson.ibm.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: The Village Waterbed

In  <1992Oct7.030841.11982@rotag.mi.org>  kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
> 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) write
> >> In article <1992Oct04.070955.166064@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.IBM.com wr
> >> >In  <1992Oct3.180259.402@rotag.mi.org>  kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) wri
> >> >> In article <1992Sep29.174017.20251@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.ibm.com
> >> >> >Hint - it's not 3 inches of air separating the fetus from becoming a chil
> >> >> >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?

You do, Kevin - that's why I asked you.

> The one who is claiming a general principle (i.e. you),

Actually, I was explaining why the 3 inches is meaningful.  You're the
one that made an issue of the example I used.

> or the one who is skeptical (i.e. me)?

The use of deadly physical force is legally justified to prevent or terminate
a rape in all states that I know of.  You didn't express skepticism; you
strongly implied that this is *not* true in every state.  I asked for the
list of states in which it's not legal, in order that I might modify my claim
the next time this came up.  If you were speaking from ignorance, or meant
to ask a question but ended with a period instead of a question mark,
then there's no need to modify what I said.

> so why on earth do you think I have an obligation to prove anything one way
> or the other?

You certainly have no obligation to prove your claim, but if you *don't*
list the states, I'll dismiss your claim as one of ignorance.

> >> >> 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_?

I claimed that they're legislated, and the laws of NY prove that claim.
I made no claims as to WHY they were legislated.  That's *your* claim.
I showed why your suggestion of deterrence was an extremely stupid one,
but I have no interest in speculating as to the "presumed intent" of
the people who made the laws.

> >> >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 answered the question of relevance to what I have been saying.
You're the only one nattering on about "abstract legal principles".
I've been talking about what the law *states*.  If you have a problem
with the way that the NYPD converted the New York law into plain English
for their training guide, go argue with them.  I quoted the training guide
because I had it handy.

> >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.

Maybe back then, they used a little common sense, and there wouldn't
have to *be* an explicit exception for cases where it was obviously
justified.  Such as forcible rape.

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity