Probably a "different" kind of Christian...

[LeSellers]

A woman who has never given birth can only _begin_ to imagine what that might be like.  A woman who has given birth is infinitely more qualified than any of them.  But only a woman who's been there really knows.  Every woman's situation and capacity will be different (even two who are able to make the same choice will still feel differently about it).  There's a reason some of God's counsel is generic until specific guidance is sought by the individuals directly involved.

And that dead baby will not get any better.

Lehi

[Just_A_Guy]

a) Be impregnated against her will and carry that child to term (and either give that child up or keep it)

 

It's not that hard to imagine, actually.  Men can get raped just as women can.  A man just needs to imagine being the psychological horror of being raped again and again, every minute of every day for nine months, with about ten hours of intense physical pain at the end of it.

Edited January 6, 2016 by Just_A_Guy

[Guest]

My thought, FWIW, is that even if we say life begins at conception--the continued gestation/delivery of a child conceived through rape/incest may result in debilitating emotional, and perhaps in some cases physical, trauma for the victim.  In such cases, I think the victim should have the legal leeway she needs to prevent her being subjected to additional harm--up to and including killing the person who (even innocently) threatens to inflict that harm.

 

I have started a thread on this one a while back.  In that thread, I posited that there is no need for exceptions.  Not even when the mother is dying.

 

Just like when we decide what is murder, we don't have to put an exception of - unless the two people are falling off the airplane and there is only 1 parachute... then you can give the parachute to the other person without being accused of murdering the other one.... both, of course, are dying.

 

Giving an exception is tantamount to - You have the Right to Life, Liberty, and the pursuit... EXCEPT when you don't.

Edited January 6, 2016 by anatess

[LeSellers]

It's not that hard, actually.  Men can get raped just as women can.

In fact, more men, by far, get raped in any given period than women do.

Often, it is by a woman (or women), but usually by another man (or men). That's what prison (and sometimes the military) is all about.

Lehi

Edited January 6, 2016 by LeSellers

[Just_A_Guy]

We shouldn't. But there is no evidence I'm aware of that a trauma, such as rape, has ever forced anyone to become irremediably psychotic.

 

Do you mean "psychotic" in the clinical sense, as in "losing contact with external reality"?  Or do you mean "psychotic" as in "suffering intense and daily emotional pain, with consequences for one's professional, personal, family and romantic relationships"?

 

I would agree with your statement under the former definition; but not the latter.

 

But even then, a mental condition is not sufficient justification for killing a non-violent child.

 

Wait--Carborendum was just telling me that the culpability of the exerter of force is irrelevant.  Are you suggesting that it is relevant (insofar as the exerter is a "non-violent child")?  Or are you saying that infliction of psychological trauma is non-violent?

Edited January 6, 2016 by Just_A_Guy

[Guest MormonGator]

In fact, more men, by far, get raped in any given period than women do.

Often, it is by a woman (or women), but usually by another man (or men). That's what prison (and sometimes the military) is all about.

Lehi

Uh, I'm going to have see a report on this one. Not sure about this. While male rape does occur (and it's horrendous) I highly doubt it happens more than assaults on women. 

Edited January 6, 2016 by MormonGator

[Guest]

Which clarification I appreciate; but the bottom line seems to be that both babies threaten continued trauma to the mother.  It's just that one threatens physical trauma whereas the other threatens psychological trauma.

 

Let us assume that a pregnant victim of rape has made the decision to continue to carry the baby to term and raise the baby herself.  Now she sees the baby everyday.  Let us also assume that -- for whatever psychological makeup she has combined with the circumstances of her life -- she has it in her mind that the child now is a living breathing reminder of the rape that so brutally changed her life.  This too can cause psychological harm.  Maybe even worse.  Is she justified in killing the baby/young child at that time?

 

On what basis, then, do we say that a woman is justified in shooting a man who tries to rape her, but is not justified in shooting a man who merely attempts to grab her hand or steal a kiss?

 

Jag, as a lawyer, you know the answer to that one.  The use of deadly force is well established and has a long history of precedent.  The details are to be debated in a court room on a case by case basis.

[Just_A_Guy]

I have started a thread on this one a while back.  In that thread, I posited that there is no need for exceptions.  Not even when the mother is dying.

 

Just like when we decide what is murder, we don't have to put an exception of - unless the two people are falling off the airplane and there is only 1 parachute... then you can give the parachute to the other person without being accused of murdering the other one.... both, of course, are dying.

 

I don't know that I quite follow the logic here.

 

I mean, if your point is "if she doesn't have the abortion, then they both die, so she may as well have the abortion and save one life"--yeah, that makes sense, if we assume that there never exists a situation where chidlbirth might kill the mother but leave the child alive.  Otherwise, though, I'm going to need you to walk me through that one a bit more.

 

 

Giving an exception is tantamount to - You have the Right to Life, Liberty, and the pursuit... EXCEPT when you don't.

 

But we create circumstance-based exceptions to fundamental natural/Constitutional rights all the time.  Prison, for example.

[LeSellers]

All that is relevant is that physical force seems imminent.

Not only physical force, but fraud and other compulsion. Someone's holding a gun in his hand while "asking" you to sign over the deed to your house would still be force. In the case we are discussing it is almost always physical force, but let's say that the rapist were threatening to kill the woman's child or her father if she doesn't give in? It's still force.

 

On what basis, then, do we say that a woman is justified in shooting a man who tries to rape her, but is not justified in shooting a man who merely attempts to grab her hand or steal a kiss?

Again with an unlikely (read nearly non-existent) possibility.

The ultimate aim of the attacker is the issue.

If it is rape, then he will do her harm that cannot be remedied, and his life is forfeit. If it is a mere kiss, while unwanted and unwelcome will not hurt her permanently. No lethal force is permissible. However, this is not from his mind. The whole question is about how the victim assesses the threat.

Lehi

Edited January 6, 2016 by LeSellers

[LeSellers]

Uh, I'm going to have see a report on this one.

Check YouTube, Stefan Molyneau's "The Truth About" series. He has a ton of documentation.

Here's one:

youtube.com/watch?v=k9s5H-RNjxY

And here's another:

youtube.com/watch?v=3mzYKWDx6YI

Lehi

Edited January 6, 2016 by LeSellers

[Guest MormonGator]

Check YouTube, Stefan Molyneau's "The Truth About" series. He has a ton of documentation.

Here's one:

youtube.com/watch?v=k9s5H-RNjxY

Lehi

 Oh I'll check it out, but I'm still from Missouri on this one ;-)  Nothing personal. 

Edited January 6, 2016 by MormonGator

[Just_A_Guy]

Let us assume that a pregnant victim of rape has made the decision to continue to carry the baby to term and raise the baby herself.  Now she sees the baby everyday.  Let us also assume that -- for whatever psychological makeup she has combined with the circumstances of her life -- she has it in her mind that the child now is a living breathing reminder of the rape that so brutally changed her life.  This too can cause psychological harm.  Maybe even worse.  Is she justified in killing the baby/young child at that time?

 

No, for a variety of reasons including a) she already had her chance for an abortion and declined; b) the child is capable (with state assistance) of pursuing its own destiny independently of the mother and she can be spared physical proximity from it; and c) proportionality (if the knowledge that the child is alive somewhere is causing her psychological harm, then the knowledge that the rapist is alive somewhere would also be causing her psychological harm--but we don't allow rape victims to go and exact blood vengeance on their attackers after the fact).

 

Jag, as a lawyer, you know the answer to that one.  The use of deadly force is well established and has a long history of precedent.  The details are to be debated in a court room on a case by case basis.

 

Well, but that's why I'm scratching my head.  Because the answer is that it's based on statutes and case law that, in turn, derive from philosophical discussions of a) the culpability of the person initiating the force, and b) the degree of trauma (including psychological trauma) that the force might cause. 

 

You and/or Lehi seem to be saying that these aren't factors at all; so what are we left with?

Edited January 6, 2016 by Just_A_Guy

[LeSellers]

Are you suggesting that it is relevant (insofar as the exerter is a "non-violent child")?  Or are you saying that infliction of psychological trauma is non-violent?

You do love picking nits, do you not?

The mental condition of his mother is no justification for killing the child.

Lehi

[Guest]

Wait--Carborendum was just telling me that the culpability of the exerter of force is irrelevant.  Are you suggesting that it is relevant (insofar as the exerter is a "non-violent child")?  Or are you saying that infliction of psychological trauma is non-violent?

 

Since I am not following the line of reasoning you're going down, I'm just going to make a statement on force.

 

If someone is doing ANYTHING to me for ANY reason that will imminently threaten my life or possibly induce severe bodily harm (assuming I'm not consenting) I have the right to use any means necessary to defend my life and body.  If the circumstances are right, that includes killing the person who is about to do me harm.

 

I think it fitting to use an equally horrific example form history.  Foreign wars were replete with stories of the enemy soldiers strapping bombs on little children and sending them to run into American camps, forcing the Americans to shoot the child.  Then the enemy could use this as a propaganda tool to say that Americans were killing babies who meant them no harm.  Many who shot such children had a tough time coping with the image of the child being taken down by the bullets they themselves fired.  They had to live with that.

 

There are certainly instances where causing psychological harm is worthy of action.  But death?  If we're talking about a teenager or an adult causing psychological harm, and are doing so without some physically violent means (remember we're talking about the child, not the perpetrator) what means are we allowed to use to prevent such a person from continuing?  Do any of them include killing the one causing the harm?  Could any such methods be used on a fetus?

 

We need to go back to the question: when does life begin?  If it begins in the womb at some point, we need to treat the baby (from that point) as if it were walking around.  It has rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.  If it does not begin until birth, then the abortionists are right.  The mother should be able to do anything she wants.

[Just_A_Guy]

 In the case we are discussing it is almost always physical force, but let's say that the rapist were threatening to kill the woman's child or her father if she doesn't give in? It's still force.

 

But as to her, that's not physical force.  As to her that's merely a threat to impose psychological trauma, which you've suggested is non-permanent in nature and thereby cannot justify lethal self-defense tactics.

 

 

If it is rape, then he will do her harm that cannot be remedied . . .

 

Psychological harm, Lehi.  Psychological harm.

[Guest]

No, for a variety of reasons including a) she already had her chance for an abortion and declined; b) the child is capable (with state assistance) of pursuing its own destiny independently of the mother and she can be spared physical proximity from it; and c) proportionality (if the knowledge that the child is alive somewhere is causing her psychological harm, then the knowledge that the rapist is alive somewhere would also be causing her psychological harm--but we don't allow rape victims to go and exact blood vengeance on their attackers after the fact).

 

 

Well, but that's why I'm scratching my head.  Because the answer is that it's based on statutes and case law that, in turn, derive from philosophical discussions of a) the culpability of the person initiating the force, and b) the degree of trauma (including psychological trauma) that the force might cause. 

 

You and/or Lehi seem to be saying that these aren't factors at all; so what are we left with?

 

a) I don't see that as a valid argument unless you're saying that the walking baby is a substantively different life form to the fetus that preceded it.  I'm not in agreement with that.

 

b) I see the point about the child being able to independently seek its own destiny away from the mother.  I'm not sure if that changes my position (not that I've fully developed one yet).  But I see that as a point to consider.

 

c) I don't even get the point you're making.

 

 

***********************

 

Case law also includes the notion that deadly force is permissible as a deterrent when a "sufficiently malevolent and forceful act" cannot be deterred using non-deadly means (or if non-deadly means are unavailable).  Rape certainly qualifies.  Is the child by its very existence committing a "sufficiently malevolent and forceful act"?

 

The devil's in the details.

Edited January 6, 2016 by Guest

[Just_A_Guy]

You do love picking nits, do you not?

The mental condition of his mother is no justification for killing the child.

Lehi

 

Let me make sure I understand--preserving the mother's mental health from severe psychological trauma is no justification for killing the child?

 

There are certainly instances where causing psychological harm is worthy of action.  But death?  If we're talking about a teenager or an adult causing psychological harm, and are doing so without some physically violent means (remember we're talking about the child, not the perpetrator) what means are we allowed to use to prevent such a person from continuing?  Do any of them include killing the one causing the harm?  Could any such methods be used on a fetus?

 

The point I've been trying to make, Carborendum, is that in some cases psychological harm can be more debilitating over the long term than physical harm.  Rape, for example--a woman can come through a forcible rape with neither a bruise nor a scratch.  It's the psychological repercussions that make it so damaging--so much so, that as a society we excuse a woman who chooses to kill a man who looks rapey.

 

While a child in utero certainly doesn't wish to cause harm, the simple fact is--in many cases, it is causing harm..  If we say that the moral culpability of the person causing the harm doesn't factor into the actions we take against that person--which is a point I thought you'd conceded--then pleas that "but it's an innocent child!!!" no longer have bearing on the discussion.  The only issue is whether the mother's interest in protecting herself outweighs the harm-causer's right to continued existence.

 

 

We need to go back to the question: when does life begin?  If it begins in the womb at some point, we need to treat the baby (from that point) as if it were walking around.  It has rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.  If it does not begin until birth, then the abortionists are right.  The mother should be able to do anything she wants.

 

I think I've conceded, for purposes of this discussion, that life begins at conception.  Again, the key question to me is the mother's continued right to self-defense even at the expense of another person's life.

[LeSellers]

Let me make sure I understand--preserving the mother's mental health from severe psychological trauma is no justification for killing the child?

Yes, for the eighty-fifth time.

 

The point I've been trying to make, Carborendum, is that in some cases psychological harm can be more debilitating over the long term than physical harm.

It's the psychological repercussions that make it so damaging--so much so, that as a society we excuse a woman who chooses to kill a man who looks rapey.

And that's … good?

 

While a child in utero certainly doesn't wish to cause harm, the simple fact is--in many cases, it is causing harm..  If we say that the moral culpability of the person causing the harm doesn't factor into the actions we take against that person--which is a point I thought you'd conceded--then pleas that "but it's an innocent child!!!" no longer have bearing on the discussion.  The only issue is whether the mother's interest in protecting herself outweighs the harm-causer's right to continued existence.

If life is so valueless, why not just kill everyone?

The law may recognize that a child in utero has no rights his mother does not grant him, if that child is alive, he has rights no court of legislator can legitimately deny. As long as he is not a threat to hurt her physically, she has no legitimate right to kill him, her mental "health" notwithstanding.

  

I think I've conceded, for purposes of this discussion, that life begins at conception.

End of discussion, then: no one has the right to kill another person without an imminent threat of harm.

 

Again, the key question to me is the mother's continued right to self-defense even at the expense of another person's life.

The key, then, is whether the mother's right to live in mental comfort outweighs the child's right to life. If the child is truly alive, it does not, not any more than she would have the right to kill him five years later because he "drives [her] up the wall".

Lehi

Edited January 6, 2016 by LeSellers

[Guest]

While a child in utero certainly doesn't wish to cause harm, the simple fact is--in many cases, it is causing harm..  If we say that the moral culpability of the person causing the harm doesn't factor into the actions we take against that person...

 

The only issue is whether the mother's interest in protecting herself outweighs the harm-causer's right to continued existence.

 

 

I think I've conceded, for purposes of this discussion, that life begins at conception.  Again, the key question to me is the mother's continued right to self-defense even at the expense of another person's life.

 

The point I made with the final paragraph of post #91 was that the standard for the use of deadly force is different for psychological harm than physical harm.

 

If severe physical harm is imminent, regardless of intent, then the use of deadly force for self-defense is permissible.

 

If we're talking about severe psychological harm is imminent, then the standard for the use of deadly force is "sufficiently malevolent and forceful act".  Certainly that may vary with jurisdiction.  But this is a pretty good standard that I can get behind.  By that standard for psychological harm, deadly force would not be permitted for a fetus.

 

**** I note that you've made the concession about conception for the purposes of discussion. But as discussed in my earlier posts, I'm not certain that is true.  Thus I still have misgivings about some portions of my still unsolidified position.

Edited January 6, 2016 by Guest

[yjacket]

I would be interested in digging into this definition of "initiating force" more.  We (seem to) have established that culpability is irrelevant, and that the resultant psychological trauma to the victim is irrelevant.  All that is relevant is that physical force seems imminent.  On what basis, then, do we say that a woman is justified in shooting a man who tries to rape her, but is not justified in shooting a man who merely attempts to grab her hand or steal a kiss?

If you really want to get into the definition of "initiating force" read The Ethics of Liberty by Rothbard

http://anarcho-capitalist.org/wp-content/pdfs/Rothbard%20(Murray)%20-%20The%20Ethics%20of%20Liberty.pdf

[Just_A_Guy]

a) I don't see that as a valid argument unless you're saying that the walking baby is a substantively different life form to the fetus that preceded it.  I'm not in agreement with that.

 

b) I see the point about the child being able to independently seek its own destiny away from the mother.  I'm not sure if that changes my position (not that I've fully developed one yet).  But I see that as a point to consider.

 

c) I don't even get the point you're making.

 

 

First off, none of those three arguments is supposed to be a "silver bullet"; it's a "totality of the circumstances" thing.  But to respond to your points:

 

a)  The point is that, just because Jane has wielded power of life or death over a person once, does not mean she may continue to do so indefinitely.  At some point, Jane has made her choice and becomes morally culpable for the consequences of that choice--including the child's continued existence.   

 

c)  In philosophical discussions on crime and punishment, "proportionality" is often an issue that comes up.  You ask why, under my logic, why a rape victim shouldn't be allowed to go back and kill the child who was a product of that rape, after birth once the child's destiny is no longer inextricably bound up with her own; and I would reply (among other things) "because she can't do it to the rapist, either".  It's not proportionate.

 

 

Case law also includes the notion that deadly force is permissible as a deterrent when a "sufficiently malevolent and forceful act" cannot be deterred using non-deadly means (or if non-deadly means are unavailable).  Rape certainly qualifies.  Is the child by its very existence committing a "sufficiently malevolent and forceful act"?

Malevolent and forceful in intent, certainly not.  Malevolent and forceful in effect, very possibly.  It depends on the mental state of the victim/mother, and I think she should have the legal leeway to act as she and her caregivers deem appropriate even though I hope--and would strongly encourage--that the child be carried to term if at all possible.

Edited January 6, 2016 by Just_A_Guy

[Just_A_Guy]

And that's [a woman using lethal force against a rapist] … good?

 

Never good.  But necessary and appropriate, yes.

 

 

If life is so valueless, why not just kill everyone?

 

It's not that life is "so valueless".  It's merely that depending on the scope and gravity of the harm being caused, the life of a perpetrator of harm--even an innocent perpetrator--may become subordinate to the life of the victim of the harm.

 

 

 As long as he is not a threat to hurt her physically, she has no legitimate right to kill him, her mental "health" notwithstanding. 

End of discussion, then: no one has the right to kill another person without an imminent threat of harm.

 

Do you really not see the result of your logic?  The primary "harm" of rape is psychological, not physical.

 

The end result of your argument is that women may not use lethal force to defend themselves against forcible rape.

 

 

The key, then, is whether the mother's right to live in mental comfort outweighs the child's right to life. If the child is truly alive, it does not, not any more than she would have the right to kill him five years later because he "drives [her] up the wall".

 

We're talking psychological trauma, not mere inconvenience.  And Carborendum and I have already been discussing the hypothetical of a mother who gives birth and keeps the child, then later regrets her choice.

Edited January 6, 2016 by Just_A_Guy

[Just_A_Guy]

The point I made with the final paragraph of post #91 was that the standard for the use of deadly force is different for psychological harm than physical harm.

 

If severe physical harm is imminent, regardless of intent, then the use of deadly force for self-defense is permissible.

 

If we're talking about severe psychological harm is imminent, then the standard for the use of deadly force is "sufficiently malevolent and forceful act".  Certainly that may vary with jurisdiction.  But this is a pretty good standard that I can get behind.  By that standard for psychological harm, deadly force would not be permitted for a fetus.

 

**** I note that you've made the concession about conception for the purposes of discussion. But as discussed in my earlier posts, I'm not certain that is true.  Thus I still have misgivings about some portions of my still unsolidified position.

 

Goodness, are we up to the nineties?  I'd better sign off soon.  :)

 

Re "malevolent and forceful act"--it depends on whether we're defining "malevolent and forceful" as the intent by the perpetrator, or the effect suffered by the victim (what case are you citing for your language, by the way?).  Clearly the baby has no malevolent intent.  But the effects can be very grave indeed.

 

OK, I'm out for the night.  Catch up with you tomorrow!

[LeSellers]

Never [to kill a rapist].  But necessary and appropriate, yes.

You did not say a rapist originally, but that we excused a woman for killing a man whom she thought looked "rapey".

That's a very different proposition.

It's not that life is "so valueless".  It's merely that depending on the scope and gravity of the harm being caused, the life of a perpetrator of harm--even an innocent perpetrator--may become subordinate to the life of the victim of the harm.

 

The issue raised here is that the life of her child is not worth her mental health. If her child is alive, as you concede, then it ought to weigh just as heavily as any other person's. But if she can kill him because his existence causes her psychological distress, I know a lot of people who cause me such distress, and I'd bet I annoy others just as much. Why not kill me, and them, too, while we're assuring everyone's mental comfort.

 

 

Do you really not see the result of your logic?  The primary "harm" of rape is psychological, not physical.

No. It's not based on the future psychological harm, but the immediate physical harm of being raped. While the victim will doubtless have psychological harm, in the future, he will suffer immediate physical harm if the rape "succeeds".

 

 

The end result of your argument is that women may not use lethal force to defend themselves against forcible rape.

Only in Bizzaro world.

 

 

We're talking psychological trauma, not mere inconvenience.  And Carborendum and I have already been discussing the hypothetical of a mother who gives birth and keeps the child, then later regrets her choice.

I've seen women who were under severe distress because of their children: they were physically ill, the child keeps whining, wants dinner, needs attention, et cetera, etc, &c. She was screaming, the child crying, and she wanted very much to be elsewhere, or her child dead. Many women act on this impulse, and kill their children. It happens. So, if the child is alive at conception (which I, like Carb, have not determined just yet), killing him is no different morally, from killing him when he's five.

Lehi

Edited January 6, 2016 by LeSellers

[Just_A_Guy]

You did not say a rapist originally, but that we excused a woman for killing a man whom she thought looked "rapey".

That's a very different proposition.

 

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.

 

The issue raised here is that the life of her child is not worth her mental health. If her child is alive, as you concede, then it ought to weigh just as heavily as any other person's. But if she can kill him because his existence causes her psychological distress, I know a lot of people who cause me such distress, and I'd bet I annoy others just as much. Why not kill me, and them, too, while we're assuring everyone's mental comfort.

 

No. It's not based on the future psychological harm, but the immediate physical harm of being raped. While the victim will doubtless have psychological harm, in the future, he will suffer immediate physical harm if the rape "succeeds".

 

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.

 

Only in Bizzaro world.

 

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?

 

I've seen women who were under severe distress because of their children: they were physically ill, the child keeps whining, wants dinner, needs attention, et cetera, etc, &c. She was screaming, the child crying, and she wanted very much to be elsewhere, or her child dead. Many women act on this impulse, and kill their children. It happens. So, if the child is alive at conception (which I, like Carb, have not determined just yet), killing him is no different morally, from killing him when he's five.

 

I really wish you'd read my exchange with Carborendum, instead of just suggesting that I haven't addressed the point.  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.

Edited January 6, 2016 by Just_A_Guy