From: margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis)
Subject: Re: "Snapple" Anti-Choice?
Date: Sat, 17 Oct 1992 02:16:29 GMT
News-Software: IBM OS/2 PM RN (NR/2) v0.14a by O. Vishnepolsky and R. Rogers
Reply-To: margoli@watson.IBM.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: The Village Waterbed

In  <1992Oct16.061801.13655@rotag.mi.org>  kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>In article <1992Oct07.231738.74383@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.ibm.com writes:
>>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
>
>So you assert blatantly.

Well, you're the one that implied that there were states where it isn't
legal, so it seems to me that the burden of proof falls on you.  As I
said before, I'll simply assume that your inability to list those
states indicates that you were speaking from ignorance.

>>The use of deadly physical force is legally justified to prevent or terminate
>>a rape in all states that I know of.
>
>How many is that, Larry? New York and where else? Have you cited legal
>authorities for any state except New York? Is this "ny.talk.abortion"?

I checked with a NJ prosecutor, and other people have previously posted
that it's true in other states (I believe that Alabama and Texas, at least,
were mentioned).  However, my statement would be no less true if the
*only* state I knew of was New York.

>>> >> >> 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.
>
>If they were legislated primarily for the purpose of deterrence, then that
>automatically disqualifies them as being a valid analogy to abortion, Larry.
>Certainly, deterrence is a plausible, if not compelling, potential _raison
>d'etre_. Plausible enough to warrant disproof, which so far you have not
>even attempted.

This is not true; I explained previously why the suggestion of deterrence
is an extremely stupid one.  You never responded.

>If, on the other hand, you wish to generalize,

I keep saying that I don't; I only wanted to explain that 3" of a woman's
body is very different than 3" of air.  *You* are the one that keeps
trying to generalize this to a discussion of legal principles; if you
want to do this, then why not take your own advice, and ask over in
misc.legal.  I have no interest in going where you're trying to steer this.
--
Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion