oconnor@sunset.steinmetz (Dennis M. O'Connor) (02/12/88)
An article by morrow@topaz.rutgers.edu (John Morrow) says:
:-< In article <...> sunset!oconnor@steinmetz.UUCP writes:
:-< >An article by morrow@topaz.rutgers.edu (John Morrow) says:
:-< >So if you and I are in a boat designed only for one, and we all know
:-< >you respect life to much to kill me, and I won't leave because
:-< >it is certain death to enter the water, and you won't leave for the
:-< >same reason, then I am legally entitled to kill you, since you are
:-< >endangering my life.
:-<
:-< Bahahahahahahahah!!!!!!!!!!
:-< And where did the great Judge O'Connor (my choice for the next Supreme
:-< Court Justice. They would come a runnin' for Bork... 8-) come up with
:-< this legal precident? You also endanger my life. Does this mean I
:-< have a right to kill you? Every time a car comes at me and endangers
:-< my life, I have the right to whip out the Winchester and blow 'em
:-< away? You were born in the wrong century, my "friend".
Boy, Johny, shredding your articles is so easy it's a pleasure.
Like cycling downhill on a warm summer day.
Now listen CAREFULLY, john-boy: My entire "lifeboat" scenario
was a simple extension of YOUR previous paragraph ( which to save
yourself embareassment you've deleted ). You claimed that when
one "person" ( a fetus ) endangered another ( the mother ) then
killing the fetus was justified even tho it was innocent. I
just substituted two different people. And yes John-boy you
would ( under your own logic ) have the right to kill me. But
you WOULDN'T because of your great respect for life, see ?
:-< >Even if it isn't your fault that your there,
:-< >even if it is my fault that you are there. Sounds good to me.
:-< >Taking any ship-board cruises soon, John ?
:-<
:-< Sounds good to you... but see if the courts will buy it. Show me
:-< where this "legal principle" has been applied?
John, John, John. Listen my little parsnip : I was satarizing YOUR
logic, your statement, your reasoning. Your arguing against yourself !
Stupid you !
:-< >Oh BTW, John-boy, pregnancy ALWAYS endangers the mother's life. Every
:-< >child-birth is a potential matricide. Where do you draw the line ?
:-< >1% chance of death ? 5% ? 10% ? 90% ? How do YOU decide what risk
:-< >to HER OWN LIFE a woman MUST accept ? Answer this, oppressive one !
:-<
:-< No, STATISTICALLY, every pregnancy has a CHANCE of endangering the
:-< mother's life just like STATISTICALLY, every drive has a chance of
:-< resulting in a accident. That doesn't mean that each pregnacy or
:-< drive, by itself, endangers anyone. I don't think I have a right to
:-< kill any minority youth I might pass in the city based on the
:-< statistical chance of that youth being a criminal and endangering my
:-< life. Probable danger IS NOT real danger.
Ha ha ha ha ha. This is funny and also kind of sad. Are you REALLY
this stupid, John Morron, or do you think we are. "Danger" is a
probability of coming to harm. "Probable danger" is a probability
of probably comint to harm. Do you know enough STATISTICS to
recognize that there is no denotational difference ?
:-< > "Yes he knows just what is right, 'Cause God tells him what to do
:-< > He's the enemy of freedom, And he's coming after you."
:-<
:-< Enemy of the freedom to kill? Sure. Rush, right?
So your a pacifist ? And it's NOT by Rush, guess again.
:-< > Dennis O'Connor oconnor@sunset.steinmetz.UUCP ??
:-< John Morrow These are my opinions (no one else seems to want them...)
--
Dennis O'Connor oconnor@sunset.steinmetz.UUCP ??
ARPA: OCONNORDM@ge-crd.arpa
"Nuclear War is NOT the worst thing people can do to this planet."