From nf-nt-smi.!news1.jaring.my!news2.jaring.my!news-out.internetmci.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!news.mathworks.com!cam-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.bbnplanet.com!news.maxwell.syr.edu!zdc-e!super.zippo.com!szdc!e046.gene.uic.edu!mayday Mon Apr 21 10:19:58 1997 Path: nf-nt-smi.!news1.jaring.my!news2.jaring.my!news-out.internetmci.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!news.mathworks.com!cam-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.bbnplanet.com!news.maxwell.syr.edu!zdc-e!super.zippo.com!szdc!e046.gene.uic.edu!mayday From: Tommy the Terrorist Newsgroups: utexas.general,austin.general,alt.support.boy-lovers,alt.censorship,rec.humor,alt.tasteless,misc.legal Subject: Partial birth sodomy? [was Re: Censorship of UT NAMBLA...] Date: 18 Apr 1997 05:20:15 GMT Organization: Dis Lines: 32 Distribution: world Message-ID: <5j70af$l6o@lana.zippo.com> References: <334C051A.3972@mail.utexas.edu> <5j0vul$ng$1@news1.xs4all.nl> <5j3v0v$52a$1@news1.xs4all.nl> <861137062snz@iapetus.demon.co.uk> NNTP-Posting-Host: e046.gene.uic.edu Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Newsreader: Nuntius 2.0.4_68K X-XXMessage-ID: X-XXDate: Fri, 18 Apr 1997 05:19:09 GMT Xref: nf-nt-smi. alt.censorship:3485 rec.humor:2729 alt.tasteless:1338 misc.legal:2355 In article Michael Mulvaney, mikem@curly.cc.utexas.edu writes: >Yeah, Nash's wording would eliminate the need for a North American >Man-Fetus Love Association. Mmmm... let's think about this... Suppose someone arranges a "partial birth sodomy", in which (just like in a partial birth abortion) that baby's ass is delivered, but its head stays tucked into its mother's womb. The pedophile in question now buggers the baby's behind... Is this a Menage A Trois? If he does this without the baby's consent, is that rape (or child molesting if the baby does consent)? And if so, then how come it's OK to suck the baby's brains out through a hose without anaesthetic, but not to pump a little sperm into its ass? If he does it without the mother's consent, is he raping the mother? If the baby grows up to have a scandalously "loose" asshole, presumably it (he) can sue the pedophile for "wrongful buttfucking". But if he sucks the baby's brains out afterward, then it's dead - can it still sue him for the incontinence problems it might have had? Surely it can't sue him for aborting it! Does this qualify as "prenatal child abuse"? And if so, who's guilty - the mother or the pedophile?! Or is it "postnatal child abuse", based on the theory that whatever part abused determines pre-vs.-post natal? Who's guilty of Unnatural Sex Acts - pedophile, mother, or baby?