dolan@ihnp1.UUCP (Mike Dolan) (04/03/84)
<line-eater food> I cannot accept the definition of rape as given by A.REED in the posting entitled "The 9 month rape". To quote: "But the occupation of one person's bodily cavity by another person, without the first person's consent, is the definition of rape. If the fetus is a separate person, and not a part of the mother's body, then being forced to continue an unwanted pregnancy is rape." I would define rape as the forcible entry of the male organ into the woman's body. The fetus did not forcibly enter the woman's body. It began its existence there. It did not choose to come into existence. There is every indication that the fetus would choose to continue to live given the chance (witness starving children in 3rd world countries.) Until there are other life support systems to support that child's/fetus's life, the mother's womb is the only place for that child to exist for several months. The tradeoff is several months of inconvenience for one human being against the life of another human being. (I am using the assumption from the quote above that the "fetus is a separate person.") Have a good day, Mike Dolan AT&T Bell Labs, Naperville, IL ihnp4!ihnp1!dolan
brt@pyuxvv.UUCP (B Reytblat) (04/05/84)
<- go ahead, eat this line... MAKE MY DAY... 9 month rape, huh? OK. Here goes: Presuming the woman in question consented to the intercourse, the cute little sperm were in her womb at her invitation . Moreover, she knew full well that at least one of the little buggers would insist on staying for a rather extended period (of say 9 months :-). Granted, the child thus born doesn't bear much resemblance to the orignally invited guest, the sperm. One can't, however, deny a very close relationship between the two. Else why is the father responsible for child support ? B.Reytblat ...!pyuxvv!brt
kjm@ut-ngp.UUCP (04/05/84)
[steal my line, then!] >Presuming the woman in question consented to the intercourse, >the cute little sperm were in her womb at her invitation . >Moreover, she knew full well that at least one of the little buggers would >insist on staying for a rather extended period (of say 9 months :-). > ... > B.Reytblat > ...!pyuxvv!brt Oh, so now you can't even get rid of a guest no matter how bad of an effect he/she has on your self (or house) ?! Shredder-of-hapless-smurfs (Ken Montgomery) ...{ihnp4,seismo,ctvax}!ut-sally!ut-ngp!kjm
laura@utzoo.UUCP (Laura Creighton) (04/07/84)
I can get rid of a guest that has a bad effect on my house, but not by killing him. And, if I am a landlord, I can't just kick out my tenents with no notice because I no longer wish I had rented at all. -- Laura Creighton utzoo!laura "Not to perpetrate cowardice against one's own acts! Not to leave them in the lurch afterward! The bite of conscience is indecent" -- Nietzsche The Twilight of the Idols (maxim 10)