Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site brl-tgr.ARPA
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!whuxlm!whuxl!houxm!vax135!cornell!uw-beaver!tektronix!hplabs!pesnta!amd!amdcad!amdimage!prls!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!brl-tgr!matt
From: matt@brl-tgr.ARPA (Matthew Rosenblatt )
Newsgroups: net.abortion
Subject: Re: Something NEW...
Message-ID: <2416@brl-tgr.ARPA>
Date: Thu, 24-Oct-85 20:38:31 EST
Article-I.D.: brl-tgr.2416
Posted: Thu Oct 24 20:38:31 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 30-Oct-85 03:49:53 EST
References: <5986@cbscc.UUCP> <5@uscvax.UUCP> <6032@cbscc.UUCP>
Organization: Ballistic Research Lab
Lines: 64

> >>>Why is rape illegal?  [PHILLIP W. SERVITA]

> >> In case you were asking, Why do we abhor rape?, I don't think this has a
> >> direct answer.  Being raped often ruins a woman's life.  At least it has
> >> a profound negative effect on the rest of it. [A. J. ROSENTHAL]
> 
> > Yup.  And "we" abhor it so much that "we" made it illegal, subject to
> > heavy punishment.  WHO made rape illegal?  Well, rape was outlawed
> > in England and the U.S. long before women had any say at all in the
> > government, so it must have been MEN who made rape illegal, after
> > seeing the suffering it brings.  Men didn't want their wives, sisters,
> > mothers and daughters to suffer.  The victims of rape could not speak
> > for themselves in a legal forum, so "merciful men, the sons of merciful
> > men" had to speak for them.  (Forced sex, even with one's wife, has
> > ALWAYS been against Jewish religious law.)

> (Uh oh, Jewish law with a feminist base, Matt?  Respecting the rights of
> women?---YOU KNEW THE DISAGREEMENT PART HAD TO SHOW UP EVENTUALLY :-)
> [R. ROSEN]

If not wanting wives, sisters, mothers and daughters to suffer is feminism,
then even Matt Rosenblatt is feminist, much less the Jewish law.  Kind of
drains a lot of meaning from the word, no?

> The basis for rape being illegal had nothing to do with sympathy for the
> women.  Maybe not "nothing", but it certainly wasn't the underlying reason.
> The reason was that rape was equated to theft of property---the woman was
> either a man's wife or daughter (thus "property").  Thus I disagree with
> both RosenTHAL and RosenBLATT here.  [R. ROSEN]

How does Mr. Rosen know what the "underlying reason" behind English common
law or Jewish religious law was?  

> > Now -- if Mr. Servita has some sort of analogy with anti-abortion laws
> > in mind, let him make it.  It ought to be apparent from the preceding
> > paragraph just what sort of analogy Matt Rosenblatt would make.
> > [M. ROSENBLATT]

> But there is in fact no place for such an analogy, since the original
> premise is blatantly false.  [R. ROSEN]

Mr. Servita asked a simple question.  He hasn't made any analogy yet,
let alone stated a premise.  Let's wait until we hear his analogy
and his premises before calling anything blatantly false.

>			 I find it quaint that an anti-feminist like
> Matt would claim that rape was originally illegal out of respect for
> women's rights to make his point.  [R. ROSEN]

Yup.  Out of respect for women's rights not to suffer rape.  

>			  You still haven't answered that woman's
> questions (and mine) about what is so heinous about things like feminism.
> You asserted this is though it were obvious, and left us all hanging.
> We're all waiting on the edge of our seats... [R. ROSEN]

Keep waiting.  Any woman who asked about feminism has been answered
by private mail -- and they turned out not to be radicals like Andrea
Dworkin with her absolute-equal-rights principle.  Discussions about
feminism belong in net.men, which does not exist, or in private mail.
Only where feminism is used in support of abortion on demand will 
we see Matt Rosenblatt attacking it in net.abortion.

					-- Matt Rosenblatt