Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site ut-ngp.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!hou3c!hocda!houxm!vax135!cornell!uw-beaver!tektronix!hplabs!hao!seismo!ut-sally!ut-ngp!kjm
From: kjm@ut-ngp.UUCP (Ken Montgomery)
Newsgroups: net.abortion
Subject: Re: Re*2: final argument against
Message-ID: <938@ut-ngp.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 18-Sep-84 14:35:10 EDT
Article-I.D.: ut-ngp.938
Posted: Tue Sep 18 14:35:10 1984
Date-Received: Tue, 25-Sep-84 08:43:14 EDT
References: <1256@ritcv.UUCP>, <936@ut-ngp.UUCP> <1263@ritcv.UUCP>
Organization: U.Texas Computation Center, Austin, Texas
Lines: 50

> > That is correct.  The robber is wholly resposible for his actions;
> > you are responsible for none of them.
>
> You entirely miss the point.  If you don't play with, fire you won't
> get burned.

Bull.  Fire and robbers are not analogous.  Fire is a non-sentient
phenomenon to which the concept of free will does not even apply.
A robber is a person, and therefore a sentient entity capable of
controlling his/her actions.  A robber is therefore wholly responsible
for his/her own actions.  Fires do not have minds with which to 
consider the consequences of actions; fires do not even "act", in the
same sense of the word as people do.  People act; fires happen.

By the principle you appear to espouse, criminals are blameless, and
victims cause crime simply by failing to defend completely against
its possibility.

> Inviting the robber is analogous to the woman inviting the man.

The double standard strikes again.  The woman is entirely at fault.
The man was "just invited in".  Bull.

> Do you see the point yet?

What point?  You haven't said anything that makes good sense to me yet.

>                         And as far as the woman's will, if she takes the
> risk, she should be willing to accept the consequences.
>
>
>                                         Steve Wall

The very existence of the medical procedure called "abortion" indicates
that an unwanted child is not the necessary consequence of an unwanted
pregnancy.  The very existence of fairly reliable birth control indicates
that an unwanted pregnancy is not necessarily a risk associated with sex.
Pregnancy is neither a necessary risk nor a necessary consequence of sex.
There is, therefore, no such "risk" or "consequences" as you refer to.

BTW, when you drive down the highway, you take the risk that you will lose
control of your car and hit a bridge (or other large object).  If this
should (Otis forbid!) happen to you, should you be denied medical treatment
on the grounds that you deserve to suffer the consequences of your action?

--
"Shredder-of-hapless-smurfs"
Ken Montgomery
...!{ihnp4,seismo,ctvax}!ut-sally!ut-ngp!kjm  [Usenet, when working]
kjm@ut-ngp.ARPA  [for Arpanauts only]