From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: some gods are _not_ creaters of all things, apparently
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 20:29:27 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  <1992Aug12.164927.22851@csus.edu>  chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
> In article <1992Aug12.035320.30173@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.IBM.com writes
> >In  <1992Aug12.015502.23325@csus.edu>  chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Cha
> >> In article <darkstar.713555397@milton> darkstar@milton.u.washington.edu (Alde
> >> >chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >>===========================================================================
> >> >>               I only battle the strongest.
> >> >>===========================================================================
> >> >
> >> >Thought I answered this already.  I answered your assertion about
> >> >adult/child sex, and you never answered, even though you asserted in the
> >> >same post that I wouldn't answer, and that you'd keep bugging me until I
> >> >did.  Ha!
> >>
> >> >I'm still waiting for your proof that "pro-choice = pro-child/adult sex."
> >>
> >> If you put it in this news thread, it was in my KILLfile (anything
> >> about religious debates, goes there). Right now, I'm scouring for any
> >> possible lost.Kaufman.posts, so I see your article now.
> >
> >Uh-huh.  Riiiight.
>
> Margolis, if you thought I couldn't respond to this,

No, I think you can't respond *intelligently*.  And my expression of
disbelief was directed at your assertion that you didn't see it before
because you killfiled it and you see it now because your searching for
something else.

> why am I responding to it now?

Because he said he's still waiting and you couldn't ignore it again?

> >> 1) Did Judge Lockett say that the right to privacy meant an
> >> invalidation of statutory rape?
> >> YES.
> >
> >No.  Did he say that the right to privacy meant it's OK to take advantage
> >of someone incapable of giving consent due to intoxication?  Due to
> >mental retardation?  Looks like you don't know what "statutory rape"
> >means other than your masturbatory fantasies.
>
> I thought you knew I meant the adult/child part of the statutory rape
> laws and that it was understood that this part was the one specified.

I addressed what you said, which is incorrect.

> FACT: he did say it meant the right to do it if they give consent.

Still wrong - if they gave consent due to intoxication, it's still
statutory rape.

> >Also, note that you only attempted (and failed) to prove that statutory
> >rape is now legal in Florida.  You in no way addressed the question at hand:
> >> >I'm still waiting for your proof that "pro-choice = pro-child/adult sex."
>
> Yes I did.

No, you didn't even come close.

> Adult/child sex is legal in Florida if consent is given.
> Judge Lockett did not say, "But only in the cases that I tried, is it
> legal." He simply said, "It is legal. Laws against it are
> unconstitutional."

Statutory rape covers other things besides adult/child sex.  As I pointed
out above, these other things are still illegal.  When you make a blanket
statement about "statutory rape", you're addressing *all* the relevant
statutes.

> Would you, Larry Margolis, care to address this directly, rather than
> weaseling over to statutory rape laws concerning subjects outside of
> what I originally said: adults messing around with kids.

In what I responded to, you simply said statutory rape.  I corrected you.
You *still* haven't addressed the question at hand:
>> >I'm still waiting for your proof that "pro-choice = pro-child/adult sex."

If it will help, you can assume that pro-choice implies "opposed to
parental consent for abortion".  What you would have to do to prove
your assertion is to prove that being opposed to parental consent
for abortion means being in favor of adult/child sex.  Hint:  the fact that
a judge in Florida ruled that the right to privacy which invalidated
Florida's parental consent law also invalidated a law against consensual
sex with a minor doesn't mean that someone in favor of the former is also
in favor of the latter.

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