Probably a "different" kind of Christian...

[Guest]

We can (to coin a phrase) pick nits about when a "potential rapist" crosses the line into "attempted rapist" and from there into "rapist", and where, on that spectrum, lethal defensive force is appropriate.  But I'm not sure it's necessary.   I think we agree, practically speaking, that at some point, a woman may use lethal force to defend herself against rape.  The question, I think, is what the underlying theoretical basis for that lethal force should be.

 

 

Let me draw another hypothetical:

 

Let's say that, in the line of duty, a US soldier is captured by a hypothetical MIddle Eastern warlord--let's call him, say, "Uday Hussein".  The soldier is put in a kangaroo court and convicted.  Uday Hussein comes in and says:

 

American soldier, here's the deal.  I maintain, as you know, a series of rape rooms.  Your sentence is to spend nine months in one of my rape rooms.  During that time I may violate you as often as I wish, perhaps multiple times per day, at any time.  But for that, your existence will be quite comfortable--you will be well-fed, housed adequately, and provided with the very best of medical and psychological care.  And furthermore, my sexual assaults on you will not leave any scratching or bruising on your person; there will be no physical harm.  But you will be subject to these violations.

 

And further, American soldier--you are actually free to walk away from this rape room at any time and catch the first flight back to Washington, DC.  But if you do, I will kill a five-year-old Kurdish girl.

 

Now, it's certainly very noble of the American soldier to choose to suffer through those nine months to save the child's life.  But I ask you--if the American soldier decides that he is not emotionally or psychologically up to this trial, and he chooses to go straight to the airport and go home--should an American court martial then convict him for the child's murder?  Are you going to tell that soldier "sorry, but your mental health wasn't worth the life of that five-year-old"?

 

It's easy, as a male, to come to an impregnated rape victim and drawl "Aw, shucks, li'l lady, it can't be that bad!!!"  But I'm here to tell you that there are impregnated rape victims out there who say that their experience in gestating the child is that bad.  The pregnancy, in such cases, is not simply fallout from a past violation or a threat of future psychological harm.  It is "immediate" psychological harm--every waking moment is a new violation.

 

 

Right.

 

So, do you see anything in the US Code in any State or Federal that says - Killing an innocent is murder except when you're being raped then it's not.

 

No.  There's no such thing.  Because... there is no need to assign a lesser value to the Kurdish girl's life to make the choice of the soldier easier.  The Kurdish girl's life is of equal value to the soldier's and the case of murder will only need to come up if the Kurdish girl or her parents or her government sue the soldier for the rights of the Kurdish girl.  Which is as it should be - the Kurdish girl gets to have a voice instead of being forcefully silenced because her life is of less value.

 

This is the issue.  The Except When... codifies a lesser value for an innocent human life by law because we don't want the rape victim to have to worry about getting sued.  This is STILL the exact same boat as elective abortion for convenience.  I don't like codifying a lesser value to life regardless of who gets to have to drastically deal with it.  Because, the fact remains that... once we agree on when life begins, then by virtue of the inalienable rights - mothers, even rape victims, have to bump their rights against their child's.

Edited January 6, 2016 by anatess

[LeSellers]

We can (to coin a phrase) pick nits about when a "potential rapist" crosses the line into "attempted rapist" and from there into "rapist", and where, on that spectrum, lethal defensive force is appropriate.  But I'm not sure it's necessary.   I think we agree, practically speaking, that at some point, a woman may use lethal force to defend herself against rape.  The question, I think, is what the underlying theoretical basis for that lethal force should be.

It happens when there is a reasonable expectation that the rape will occur. His "looking rapey" is nowhere near that threshold.

In each circumstance, we must examine the details, but it is primarily up to the intended victim, be he male or female, to determine his mindset, and his expectations. After the fact, in the calm light of the morning, it may be possible to evaluate his choice, but at the point when the attack is imminent, it is the victim whose opinion is the most important.

Likening the words of USmerican Justice Potter, we might say, "I know it when I see it."

 

Among other things, with a five-year-old the mother can separate herself from the child through a mechanism that will not result in the death of the child.

I saw your response to Carb. I simply reject the logic behind it, as I am sure you do mine.

If a child is alive at conception, or at any other pre-natal point, the fact of murder is not different for abortion than for infanticide. Five years breathing or five weeks gestating, the child is dead.

And he ain't comin' back.

Lehi

Edited January 7, 2016 by LeSellers

[LeSellers]

Now, it's certainly very noble of the American soldier to choose to suffer through those nine months to save the child's life.  But I ask you--if the American soldier decides that he is not emotionally or psychologically up to this trial, and he chooses to go straight to the airport and go home--should an American court martial then convict him for the child's murder?  Are you going to tell that soldier "sorry, but your mental health wasn't worth the life of that five-year-old"?

 

It's easy, as a male, to come to an impregnated rape victim and drawl "Aw, shucks, li'l lady, it can't be that bad!!!"  But I'm here to tell you that there are impregnated rape victims out there who say that their experience in gestating the child is that bad.  The pregnancy, in such cases, is not simply fallout from a past violation or a threat of future psychological harm.  It is "immediate" psychological harm--every waking moment is a new violation.

It's not "as a male" (and what's wrong with "as a man?"), but using logic, rather than emotion. Yes, emotions play a real part in our lives, but they are not the basis of law or civilization.

It may "be that bad". I'm not qualified to say. What it is not is equivalent to or superior to the life of her child.

She deserves support, she deserves compassion, she deserves help and comfort. She does not deserve to kill her child.

 

Instead of retreating into "that's just crazy talk", why don't you show me why your argument logically cannot be extended that far?  If psychological damage is not grounds for lethal self-defense, and rape constitutes primarily psychological damage, then on what grounds can you say that a woman should be able to use lethal force against an attacker?

You might try tracing your logical path from my assertion to your conclusion. I'm not seeing it.

Lehi

[Vort]

I think JAG asks a fascinating question, and I would like to see it answered rather than just pushed aside. Is the soldier who voluntarily leaves his rapist, knowing it will result in the death of an innocent little girl, to be censured just as the female rape victim who aborts her pregnancy? if not, then what, exactly, is the moral difference between the two situations, based on what you claimed was the central point of discrimination?

Edited January 7, 2016 by Vort

[LeSellers]

I think JAG asks a fascinating question, and I would like to see it answered rather than just pushed aside. Is the soldier who voluntarily leaves his rapist, knowing it will result in the death of an innocent little girl, to be censured just as the female rape victim who aborts her pregnancy? if not, then what, exactly, is the moral difference between the two situations, based on what you claimed was the central point of discrimination?

And how does this purely hypothetical situation apply to the real world?

We don't live in the land of make-believe.

This make-believe soldier is not connected to the girl. He has no fiduciary responsibility for her life. The things are not comparable.

Lehi

[Just_A_Guy]

I saw your response to Carb. I simply reject the logic behind it, as I am sure you do mine.

If a child is alive at conception, or at any other pre-natal point, the fact of murder is not different for abortion than for infanticide. Five years breathing or five weeks gestating, the child is dead.

And he ain't comin' back.

Lehi

 

It strikes me that you're taking an all-or-nothing approach to human rights.  Because the child's rights are subordinated to the mother's in a certain set of circumstances, the child's rights must be subordinated to the mother's in ever set of circumstances.  I disagree with that, but it's a fascinating line of discussion and I'd be interested to see you open a thread dedicated to that issue specifically.

 

And, like Vort said--please do engage my hypothetical.  Does the soldier have a moral duty to let himself be raped, to save the Kurdish girl?  If so, does that moral duty translate into a legal duty?

 

 It's not "as a male" (and what's wrong with "as a man?"), but using logic, rather than emotion. Yes, emotions play a real part in our lives, but they are not the basis of law or civilization.

It may "be that bad". I'm not qualified to say. What it is not is equivalent to or superior to the life of her child.

She deserves support, she deserves compassion, she deserves help and comfort. She does not deserve to kill her child.

 

And, the captive soldier?  Does he deserve to "kill" the Kurdish child by his refusal to submit to sexual assault?

 

 

You might try tracing your logical path from my assertion to your conclusion. I'm not seeing it.

 

1.  Your assertion (correct me if it's wrong):  Psychological damage is not grounds for the use of lethal self-defense tactics.

2.  Rape constitutes primarily psychological, not physical, damage.

3.  The prospect of rape, however immediate, is not grounds for the use of lethal self-defense tactics.

[Just_A_Guy]

This make-believe soldier is not connected to the girl. He has no fiduciary responsibility for her life. The things are not comparable.

 

The soldier did not put the girl there, but her life is completely dependent on the choice he makes.

 

Similarly, the rape victim did not put the child there, but the child's life is completely dependent on the choice she makes.

[Just_A_Guy]

Right.

 

So, do you see anything in the US Code in any State or Federal that says - Killing an innocent is murder except when you're being raped then it's not.

 

I don't understand, Anatess.  Is self-defense not a legal justification for homicide in the Philippines?

 

From what I gather, self-defense law in most (US) jurisdictions doesn't concern itself with whether the aggressor was morally "innocent".  It deals with the threat as perceived, in the moment, by the person who used deadly force in self-defense.

 

And yeah, I think that necessarily (though not explicitly) assigns values to lives.  If the two lives were of exactly legal value, then we wouldn't allow for self-defense.  The two parties would go at each other, and we'd just convict the last man standing regardless of the survivor's motivations.

 

 

Because... there is no need to assign a lesser value to the Kurdish girl's life to make the choice of the soldier easier.  The Kurdish girl's life is of equal value to the soldier's and the case of murder will only need to come up if the Kurdish girl or her parents or her government sue the soldier for the rights of the Kurdish girl.  Which is as it should be - the Kurdish girl gets to have a voice instead of being forcefully silenced because her life is of less value.

 

I don't understand this.  By saying that the law should contain no exception for rape victims, you're going far beyond giving this girl her day in court.  You're saying that government will sue the soldier, and that the soldier will lose. 

 

 

This is the issue.  The Except When... codifies a lesser value for an innocent human life by law because we don't want the rape victim to have to worry about getting sued.  This is STILL the exact same boat as elective abortion for convenience.  I don't like codifying a lesser value to life regardless of who gets to have to drastically deal with it.  Because, the fact remains that... once we agree on when life begins, then by virtue of the inalienable rights - mothers, even rape victims, have to bump their rights against their child's.

 

Like the soldier has to bump his rights against the Kurdish girl's? 

 

Does he have to submit to rape to save the life of a child who, but for an act of supreme wickedness, would have no connection to him whatsoever?

Edited January 7, 2016 by Just_A_Guy

[Vort]

 

And how does this purely hypothetical situation apply to the real world?

 

Are you seriously unable to make the connection between JAG's hypothetical situation and the issue at hand?

 

This make-believe soldier is not connected to the girl. He has no fiduciary responsibility for her life. The things are not comparable.

 

They are perfectly comparable. The soldier is exactly as "connected to" the girl as the pregnant rape victim is "connected to" the baby (except in a literal way, which is irrelevant). Neither knows the child at risk. Neither chose the situation to exist, either through intent or action. Both are being subject to ongoing psychological distress, and both can relieve that particular cause of distress by engaging in a course of action that will kill the child.

 

The moral situation in each case is almost exactly similar. If you believe it is not, please explain carefully how the situations are morally different.

[LeSellers]

1.  Your assertion (correct me if it's wrong):  Psychological damage is not grounds for the use of lethal self-defense tactics.

2.  Rape constitutes primarily psychological, not physical, damage.

3.  The prospect of rape, however immediate, is not grounds for the use of lethal self-defense tactics.

On 1, that is correct.

On 2, not so much, because I reject the idea that the primary damage of rape is psychological before it happens. The terror of anticipating rape is palpable, and it has physical manifestations that parallel the same fear as if the threat were about being killed. In fact, the victim does not know how it will end: he could be killed after to keep him quiet or to fulfill the final fantasy.

On 3, again, since your premise is wrong in 2, your conclusion is erroneous.

Finally, the threat of rape is, by definition, prior to the fact, and that chronology is what makes it different. One has the God-given right to defend himself from likely physical harm, and if that defense is lethal, so be it.

Lehi

Edited January 7, 2016 by LeSellers

[LeSellers]

They are perfectly comparable. The soldier is exactly as "connected to" the girl as the pregnant rape victim is "connected to" the baby (except in a literal way, which is irrelevant). Neither knows the child at risk. Neither chose the situation to exist, either through intent or action. Both are being subject to ongoing psychological distress, and both can relieve that particular cause of distress by engaging in a course of action that will kill the child.

There is the one thing that you ignore entirely: that baby is hers, not some other woman's. That it is his, as well, does not negate that literal connection. The soldier has no relationship at all to the girl.

Uday was totally unconnected to either the girl or the soldier except as a rapist/murderer. His brutality does not connect the girl to the soldier.

There is no connection, either, between the cases of a child of a rapist and his victim and their child and the girl, Uday, and the soldier.

Lehi

[LeSellers]

They are perfectly comparable. The soldier is exactly as "connected to" the girl as the pregnant rape victim is "connected to" the baby (except in a literal way, which is irrelevant). Neither knows the child at risk. Neither chose the situation to exist, either through intent or action. Both are being subject to ongoing psychological distress, and both can relieve that particular cause of distress by engaging in a course of action that will kill the child.refully how the situations are morally different.

Oh, I forgot: there is no guarantee that Uday would keep his word. It is completely believable that he would kill the girl and then not let the soldier go.

While there is no morality in an abortionist, at least he does keep his word: the baby will die. Well, most of the time. When he fails, it seems perfectly acceptable that they leave the baby to starve or freeze to death. Oh, and the mother's life is also at risk: many women die on the table, or get dumped off at a hospital bleeding copiously. So, guess Uday and the abortionist are not so different after all.

Lehi

[LeSellers]

It strikes me that you're taking an all-or-nothing approach to human rights.

Well, for the child, it is all or nothing. Once dead, he is not going to live his rightful life.

Lehi

[Guest]

I think JAG asks a fascinating question, and I would like to see it answered rather than just pushed aside. Is the soldier who voluntarily leaves his rapist, knowing it will result in the death of an innocent little girl, to be censured just as the female rape victim who aborts her pregnancy? if not, then what, exactly, is the moral difference between the two situations, based on what you claimed was the central point of discrimination?

 

There is a name for this kind of "what if" questioning that JAG did.  I forget what it is -- some type of straw man.  It is a forced story that 1) would likely never happen.  2) Creates a false sense of responsibility on one party that is not really responsible.  3) It draws parallels that are sophistry.  Such questions are often tilted to one direction because of the way the scenario is put together.

 

I'll do another one to illustrate the point.

 

Scenario one: You see a child playing on railroad track #1.  You see a train full of passengers coming on railroad track #2.  You see that track #2 takes the train off a cliff.  (obviously there was some mistake at the switching controls).  There is also a manual switch you can throw to divert the train away from the cliff and toward the child.  What do you do?

 

Scenario two: Only one track.  No child.  But there is a really fat guy that would not really stop the train, but it would cause problems such that the train would probably avoid the cliff.  People might get hurt.  But they'd live.  What do you do?

 

It's one thing to remain inactive and just let something happen.  It is quite another to take an active role that has a direct effect on someone else.  This is the underlying philosophy behind the original Hippocratic oath that said "I shall do no harm."  Many doctors throughout history allowed the suffering of their patients because to relieve them of it, they would be required to do unacceptable harm.

 

If you say the soldier is in any way responsible for what happens to the child, you're also saying that God is responsible for all the sin in the world.  That simply isn't so.

Edited January 7, 2016 by Guest

[Guest]

I don't understand, Anatess.  Is self-defense not a legal justification for homicide in the Philippines?

 

From what I gather, self-defense law in most (US) jurisdictions doesn't concern itself with whether the aggressor was morally "innocent".  It deals with the threat as perceived, in the moment, by the person who used deadly force in self-defense.

 

And yeah, I think that necessarily (though not explicitly) assigns values to lives.  If the two lives were of exactly legal value, then we wouldn't allow for self-defense.  The two parties would go at each other, and we'd just convict the last man standing regardless of the survivor's motivations.

 

 

I don't understand this.  By saying that the law should contain no exception for rape victims, you're going far beyond giving this girl her day in court.  You're saying that government will sue the soldier, and that the soldier will lose. 

 

 

Like the soldier has to bump his rights against the Kurdish girl's? 

 

Does he have to submit to rape to save the life of a child who, but for an act of supreme wickedness, would have no connection to him whatsoever?

 

 

Of course self-defense is codified in law.  But, the law does not codify self-defense as the taking of an innocent life when your own life is in danger.  Self-defense is codified as - the person you killed is actively trying to kill you.  The baby or the Kurdish girl is not the person the soldier is defending himself against.

 

The soldier, of course, does not have to submit to rape to save the life of the Kurdish girl in the same EQUAL token as the girl does not have to submit to death to save the soldier.  In the case of the Kurdish girl, she has a slim chance of being able to defend herself.  The baby has none.  The baby is silenced - ESPECIALLY, if her forced silence is codified.

 

The Kurdish girl's life is considered equal to the soldier - even if the soldier is her mother.  Her death is simply a by-product of circumstance - no different than a victim of war, no different than the soldier's if he got killed regardless.  The baby - in the case of a codified exception - has just been considered of lesser value.  Her death is not simply a by-product of circumstance - her death is deemed... medicinal.

 

A raped woman whose mental state is precariously close to death may, of course, decide to sacrifice the child's - just like the soldier's case.  And just like the soldier's case, you don't need to have to codify the life of the Kurdish girl an exception to make the soldier's choice justifiable.  Also, you don't need to codify an exception to rape to make the mother's choice justifiable - even defensible if  the baby's father/grandparents/etc. decide to sue.

 

Yes, the woman will have to go to court if somebody decides to sue and another round of reliving the rape may insue - but that's not the baby's fault either.  That's for the courts and the lawyers to figure out the best way to protect the mother.

 

The FACT remains.  Inalienable Rights to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness is not granted by law and should not be taken out by law.  Once you decide when Life begins, exceptions cannot stand because the law cannot remove an innocent life's inalienable rights.

Edited January 7, 2016 by anatess

[unixknight]

Forgive me if this has already been mentioned... I made an effort to at least skim everything to avoid repetition, but you know how it is sometimes

 

There are a couple of really big practical problems with the idea of a rape exception...

 

• How do you define such an exception?  Would the rapist have to already have been convicted of the crime in order to enable the victim to obtain an abortion?  Criminal proceedings can very easily drag out for years - far beyond the 9 month gestational period for a human being.
• If an accusation is all it takes, then we could expect to see an upswing in accusations of rape, even if there was no such crime committed in most of these cases.  The accusation alone being enough to obtain the abortion, we would see mens' reputations ruined by those who are willing to take that approach to get out of pregnancy.

 

So while I do understand the desire to create an exception that might be more compassionate toward the victim of a rape, the simple fact is that it sounds a lot better than the reality would be, and would create a new crop of problems.

 

So it's either have rape victims unable to get an abortion (which may be necessary but tragic, given the perspective that the unborn child shouldn't be made to suffer for what their father did) or make abortions universally available to cover all of these cases (given the perspective that the emotional damage to the victim outweighs the moral problems associated with the abortion). 

[Guest]

Unix,

 

That is an excellent point.  Wasn't there a famous feminist who said (for most practical purposes) that any time a man and woman mate, it is rape?  That certainly raises the definition question.

Edited January 8, 2016 by Guest

[Guest MormonGator]

Unix,

 

That is an excellent point.  Wasn't there a famous feminist who said (for most practical purposes) that any time a man and woman mate, it is rape?  That certainly raises the definition question.

 No. Andrea Dworkin never said that. I read her book. It's the most misquoted line in history, it seems. 

Edited January 8, 2016 by MormonGator

[Guest]

Forgive my foggy memory, but that isn't the name I recall being associated with said quote.  I just can't remember where...

[Guest MormonGator]

Forgive my foggy memory, but that isn't the name I recall being associated with said quote.  I just can't remember where...

I assure you, it is. I wrote an entire paper on this subject in college. 

 Because the title of her book might be taken the wrong way, I sent it to you in a private message. But yes, It was Andrea Dworkin. Not Catharine MacKinnon or Robin Morgan. 

Edited January 8, 2016 by MormonGator

[Guest]

Forgive my foggy memory, but that isn't the name I recall being associated with said quote.  I just can't remember where...

 

Catherine McKinnon got falsely attributed to that quote by Playboy.

[Guest MormonGator]

:: puts on his feminist hat :: 

It's the most misquoted feminist quote in history. Taken vastly, vastly out of context. Remember when John Lennon said "We're more popular than Jesus Christ."? And everyone flipped out and overreacted ? Well he meant "Calm down, relax, Beatlemania needs to chill" Same with the quote by Ms.Dworkin. I read her book. She makes some great points frankly. 

[Guest]

I assure you, it is. I wrote an entire paper on this subject in college. 

 Because the title of her book might be taken the wrong way, I sent it to you in a private message. But yes, It was Andrea Dworkin. Not Catharine MacKinnon or Robin Morgan. 

 

Here ya go (I haven't read either book.  I don't like Dworkin much):

 

Under patriarchy, every woman's son is her potential betrayer and also the inevitable rapist or exploiter of another woman.

-Andrea Dworkin, Our Blood (1976)

I think that men will have to give up their precious erections and begin to make love as women do together.

-Andrea Dworkin, Our Blood (1976)

Intercourse is the pure, sterile, formal expression of contempt for women’s bodies.

-Andrea Dworkin, Intercourse (1987)

Violation is a synonym for intercourse.

-Andrea Dworkin, Intercourse (1987)

[Guest MormonGator]

Here ya go (I haven't read either book.  I don't like Dworkin much):

 

Under patriarchy, every woman's son is her potential betrayer and also the inevitable rapist or exploiter of another woman.

-Andrea Dworkin, Our Blood (1976)

I think that men will have to give up their precious erections and begin to make love as women do together.

-Andrea Dworkin, Our Blood (1976)

Intercourse is the pure, sterile, formal expression of contempt for women’s bodies.

-Andrea Dworkin, Intercourse (1987)

Violation is a synonym for intercourse.

-Andrea Dworkin, Intercourse (1987)

I actually like her. And yes, it's her quote in 87 from that book was became the "all sex is rape". It's vastly misquoted. She is also anti-porn. Much more complex and fascinating person than her critics say. She also explained her original quotes much more in depth as the years went on. 

Do I agree with her on everything? Goodness no. 

Edited January 8, 2016 by MormonGator

[Guest MormonGator]

She's no Camille Paglia, that's for sure.