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]