Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site pyuxd.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!pyuxww!pyuxd!rlr
From: rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen)
Newsgroups: net.abortion
Subject: Re: Something NEW...
Message-ID: <1983@pyuxd.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 29-Oct-85 23:23:09 EST
Article-I.D.: pyuxd.1983
Posted: Tue Oct 29 23:23:09 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 1-Nov-85 23:58:00 EST
References: <5986@cbscc.UUCP> <5@uscvax.UUCP> <6032@cbscc.UUCP>
Organization: Whatever we're calling ourselves this week
Lines: 83

>>> 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.) [ROSENBLATT]

>>(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? [ROSENBLATT]

If only this was the truth behind the reasoning for these laws and not just
a coverup assertion on Matt's part.  A good look at history tells us otherwise.

>> 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?  

The same way you do.  Only I don't base my opinions on other presumptions
that I hold to "get" things I like.  Odd that YOU can assert your choice of
underlying reason, but I am subject to a bizarre line of questioning when I
state mine.

>>> 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 was talking about YOUR analogy, that you stated yourself was so very
apparent.

>>                         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.

Gosh!  What horrible "radicals"!  Like those "negroes" who insisted on
absolute equal rights for black people, eh, Matt?  Anything you don't
like, poof, it's bad, like magic?  Amazing!  (Equally amazing that you
didn't let us ALL in (*I* asked the question, too; sounds like a good
deal of general public interest...)

>> Discussions about
>> feminism belong in net.men, which does not exist, or in private mail.

Why not net.women?  (Oh, I'm sorry, to acknowledge net.women is to be
a dreadful feminist, which Matt would NEVER do.  This really stupid assertion
(there's no other word for it) is equivalent to asserting that civil
rights of minorities should only be discussed in net.roots.caucasian!

> Only where feminism is used in support of abortion on demand will 
> we see Matt Rosenblatt attacking it in net.abortion.

Da! Da-da-daaaaaaaa!  The white (male) knight comes to the rescue!
Amazing method of reasoning:  don't bother trying to dispute the veracity
of the notion of feminism itself---if it's used as support for abortion,
attack it!  GNARL! GNARL!!
-- 
"Wait a minute.  '*WE*' decided???   *MY* best interests????"
					Rich Rosen    ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr