Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site gatech.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!akgua!gatech!owens
From: owens@gatech.UUCP (Gerald R. Owens)
Newsgroups: net.abortion
Subject: Re: Reply to Gerald Owens (Re: 9 month rape)
Message-ID: <5838@gatech.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 9-Apr-84 11:00:25 EST
Article-I.D.: gatech.5838
Posted: Mon Apr  9 11:00:25 1984
Date-Received: Wed, 11-Apr-84 00:17:28 EST
References: <316@hogpd.UUCP>
Organization: Georgia Tech School of ICS, Atlanta
Lines: 23

Mr. Reed states that I misapprehended the analogy.  However, if
one looks again at the original article, one sees that the unwanted
existance of a foreign body in a woman's body is seen as rape, that
termination of the rapist was justified to terminate the rape, and
that the termination of the unwanted pregnancy would terminate the
rape.  Thus, looking at who is getting terminated makes it obvious
that the fetus is being viewed as a rapist.  I suggest that with
each analogy, a mapping function be submitted, so that the analogy
can be "properly" interpreted.

As I have mentioned in an earlier article, the "rape" analogy focusses
exclusively on the fetus, it's existance, and the crime of it's
being there against the woman's will.  However, it totally ignores
how the fetus got there in the first place.  It may be all well and
good to try a woman for the murder of a man, but to deliberatlely
exclude the evidence that the man was raping the woman and threatened
her life would be a travesty of justice, and shows a deliberate ignorance
of what constitutes proper causes of actions.  I fear the same deliberate
blunting of vision is happening in this case.

					Gerald Owens
					Owens@gatech