Sign in to follow this  
mikbone

Condoms are flying off the shelves in TX!

Recommended Posts

@Just_A_Guy another thought:

When I said the following:

59 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

So the question, when it comes to abortion, is pretty clear. Is it a murder? If it is, there is no justification.

I am meaning to imply less a broad policy so much as a criteria by which to judge each case individually. When considering each abortion this is the question that I think needs to be answered.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Well...I'd say as a general rule, taking the life of someone when not engaged in the defense of those things God has commanded us to defend unto bloodshed, unless explicitly directed otherwise by God.

Reasonable?

I can see an argument being made for, accordingly, a legal standard of rape/incest exceptions because that does seem to be (as discussed) the church's policy, and we can assume, therefore, God's.

Another part of me, however, recalls no command from God that we defend emotional trauma unto bloodshed, by killing an associated innocent. Yes...I know...very callous. But...trust me...my empathy is there, particularly in the case of rape (incest is a bit of a different matter, actually...if it's consensual). My empathy is just stronger on behalf of the baby.

As often, I agree with much of what you have written; but let me push back a bit on this point so that we can see where the contours are:

Surely you wouldn’t argue that, if we have an enemy who is out to enslave and possibly rape women and children (but we are confident that the enemy will not actually kill or even seriously physically injure those women and children so long as they comply with the enemy’s demands), that we are not justified in using lethal force to defend them because the trauma these women and children face is primarily emotional in nature?

Surely you wouldn’t argue that, if something goes “bump” in the night and I go downstairs and find a teenager in my living room, I am unjustified in shooting him when he lunges at me—even if he’s much smaller than me, and even if it turns out that he grew up in a dysfunctional home or has a mental/cognitive deficit such that he doesn’t know right or wrong?

It seems to me that in speaking of justified or unjustified killings, we generally look at the self defense issue first.  We identify and neutralize the threat to our physical and, to some degree, emotional well-being (understanding that “emotional trauma” is a slippery slope, particularly in this age of snowflakery; but I surmise we can agree that both suffering a rape and carrying a rape-borne pregnancy to term can fall under this rubric).  Analyzing the actual mental state (including “guilt” or “innocence”) of the threat to be neutralized is usually only a secondary consideration; and off the top of my head I can’t think of any classical “justified killing” scenario where a justified killing suddenly turns “unjustified” once we know a little more about the victim’s mental state.

(Note that when I say “justified” or “unjustified”, I mean “with regard to the culpability of the killer”.  I don’t mean to suggest that the person being killed was receiving their just desserts, or deserved to die, or anything like that.)

Edited by Just_A_Guy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Surely you wouldn’t argue that, if we have an enemy who is out to enslave and possibly rape women and children (but we are confident that the will not actually kill women and children who don’t resist them), that we are not justified in using lethal force to defend them because the trauma these women and children face is primarily emotional in nature?

Well, let me push back on this:

Surely you wouldn't argue that if we have an enemy who is out to enslave and possibly rape women and children that we are justified in slaughtering all their newborn children? What if doing so stopped the war? Justified then? (I know that is, indeed, sometimes the way of war...a la the end of WWII in Japan...but....)

23 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Surely you wouldn’t argue that, if something goes “bump” in the night and I go downstairs and find a teenager in my living room, I am unjustified in shooting him when he lunges at me—even if he’s much smaller than me, and even if it turns out that he grew up in a dysfunctional home or has a mental/cognitive deficit such that he doesn’t know right or wrong?

Depends. Do you know he's innocent? And is he actually threatening your life with said lunge? Or just causing some trauma? (edit: the point being...you kind of know with a baby...not a threat to life, generally, but definitely innocent and definitely will cause some level of trauma)

Granted, in such a case you couldn't possibly know. And there is certainly an argument to be made for lethal action here. There's also an argument to be made for non-lethal. Which side do you fall on? I'm hoping I'd go with non-lethal. I'm pretty sure I would if it was just me. With my family in the house...maybe not. (That being said, I'm a pretty big non-lethal kind of person, and I think I'd take every measure, even then, to avoid a lethal response. Perhaps to my regret.)

23 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

We identify and neutralize the threat to our physical

Not all physical threat is equal. I assume you agree?

23 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

but I surmise we can agree that both rape and carrying a rape-borne pregnancy to term can both fall under this rubric).

Sure. Kill the rapist. Definitely.

23 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Analyzing the actual mental state (including “guilt” or “innocence”) of the threat to be neutralized is usually only a secondary consideration; and off the top of my head I can’t think of any “justified killing” scenario where a justified killing suddenly turns “unjustified” once we know a little more about the victim’s mental state.

It really feels like your mixing threats here. And I know it's complicated. Lethal defense against rape is fully justified in my view. Lethal defense against having to feel bad about carrying a child, give birth and then give said child up for adoption....not exactly the same thing. It would be a terrible thing to have to do. I'm not denying that. I am questioning whether that justifies lethal defense. Seems to me like therapy, medication and other means of dealing with the trauma should be the go to. Because, after all, we're talking about killing a baby, not some creepy guy in your living room. You do whatever you need to to preserve that life. It is the priority. Just as you would a born baby. That baby's life comes first. You protect it first. You die first before it does. You face whatever trauma you have to in order to protect it. You deal with those things to protect the innocent.

You're talking about justified killing of an attacker and then comparing it to killing a third party for an offense committed by the attack. So....I'm so upset by someone that I'm going to stop in and murder one of their children tomorrow. Granted...the pregnancy directly effects the attacked in ways the attacker's child doesn't...but what if it did? What if the attacker was...I dunno...forcing you into slavery to nanny their child at gunpoint. Can you justifiably kill their kid then?

Edited by The Folk Prophet

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, The Folk Prophet said:

[1]Well, let me push back on this:

Surely you wouldn't argue that if we have an enemy who is out to enslave and possibly rape women and children that we are justified in slaughtering all their newborn children? What if doing so stopped the war? Justified then? (I know that is, indeed, sometimes the way of war...a la the end of WWII in Japan...but....)

[2]Depends. Do you know he's innocent? And is he actually threatening your life with said lunge? Or just causing some trauma? (edit: the point being...you kind of know with a baby...not a threat to life, generally, but definitely innocent and definitely will cause some level of trauma)

Granted, in such a case you couldn't possibly know. And there is certainly an argument to be made for lethal action here. There's also an argument to be made for non-lethal. Which side do you fall on? I'm hoping I'd go with non-lethal. I'm pretty sure I would if it was just me. With my family in the house...maybe not. (That being said, I'm a pretty big non-lethal kind of person, and I think I'd take every measure, even then, to avoid a lethal response. Perhaps to my regret.)

[3]Not all physical threat is equal. I assume you agree?

Sure. Kill the rapist. Definitely.

It really feels like your mixing threats here. And I know it's complicated. Lethal defense against rape is fully justified in my view. Lethal defense against having to feel bad about carrying a child, give birth and then give said child up for adoption....not exactly the same thing. It would be a terrible thing to have to do. I'm not denying that. I am questioning whether that justifies lethal defense. Seems to me like therapy, medication and other means of dealing with the trauma should be the go to. Because, after all, we're talking about killing a baby, not some creepy guy in your living room. You do whatever you need to to preserve that life. It is the priority. Just as you would a born baby. That baby's life comes first. You protect it first. You die first before it does. You face whatever trauma you have to in order to protect it. You deal with those things to protect the innocent.

You're talking about justified killing of an attacker and then comparing it to killing a third party for an offense committed by the attack. So....I'm so upset by someone that I'm going to stop in and murder one of their children tomorrow. Granted...the pregnancy directly effects the attacked in ways the attacker's child doesn't...but what if it did? What if the attacker was...I dunno...forcing you into slavery to nanny their child at gunpoint. Can you justifiably kill their kid then?

1.  "All"?  Probably not.  A few?  Shucks, we do that already.  How many children has our country killed in drone strikes on terrorist commanders in the past ten years?  If you can take out Hitler, but there's five kids in the bunker too--do you do it?  If you're manning a security gate in Afghanistan and a Toyota drives towards that gate at full speed, and there are three kids tied to the hood . . . do you shoot?  

I think, unfortunately, we can "never say never" in the sorts of scenarios you or I are contriving; we just have to take them one by one and weigh the value of the child's life against the degree of harm actually threatened (as we perceive it at the time that action might reasonably mitigate that threat), and the role the child plays in that threat. 

In the two scenarios you posited in your most recent post, I don't really see you make an argument about why the kids pose a threat; you almost seem to be hypothesizing situations where the killing is primarily retributive rather than preventative in nature.  And of course, I wouldn't agree with those kinds of killings at all.  If a rape-baby needs to be aborted, it's not because the baby is the demon spawn of an eee-vuhl rapist, and we're gonna show him what's what, and he's going to see I've taken my body back, and yay girl power!!!  It's because the victim's being forced to carry the baby may be, in a very real psychological sense, perpetuating the rape; and there may be no other way to make it stop (more on that below). 

2.  Well, and maybe I should have drawn a better distinction earlier on.  I would absolutely agree--the question is whether he's a threat, not whether he's an innocent; because someone can simultaneously be legitimately perceived as a threat while also being factually innocent (See, e.g., Tamir Rice--dumb as a sack of rocks, maybe; but most certainly "innocent").

And I'd agree with your preference for non-lethal action, if non-lethal action mitigates the threat.  Coming back to the abortion discussion--if we can come up with a way to transfer a fetus out of a rape victim's uterus and bring that fetus to full gestation, and if that method is not significantly more invasive/painful/traumatizing than an abortion is, then I'd be all for mandating that kind of procedure.  But so far, no such procedure exists.  

3.  Having spent more time than I would wish sitting down with rape victims and reviewing the event with them in exquisite detail (and being scheduled to do it again next week)--I would respectfully suggest that your arguments thus far may be not be giving as much consideration as is warranted to questions about the nature of rape, and how it affects victims both in the moment of the offense and (via PTSD and other issues) afterwards, and why society considers it to be so abhorrent, and the measures society is willing to let people take to prevent it.  

If the sole reason for prohibiting rape were that it can be physically painful, we wouldn't punish rapists who used threats rather than actual physical force.  Nor would we punish rapists who left no bruise or other physical injury on their victims.

If the sole reason for prohibiting rape were that it can be emotionally violating/traumatizing only in the moment that the rape actually happens, then we wouldn't punish rapists whose victims were unconscious at the time of the offense. 

I submit that rape is particularly heinous (and indeed, warrants death to the perpetrator) because, by its nature, it is not just a "one-and-done" type of act.  By its nature, it--both the memory of the event, and the simple knowledge that the event occurred--forces itself into the mind of the victim and repeats itself, over and over and over and over again, until she is reduced to a non-functional gibbering wreck; and then it repeats itself some more.  Post-hoc "feeling bad" about being a victim of such an act is not just an unfortunate, incidental side-effect; it's part-and-parcel of what makes rape rape and it’s the reason decent red-blooded men want to wring the necks of the rat-bastages who commit it.

Thus, when we see a woman who is pregnant as a result of a rape, I believe it is wrong to see her purely as a victim of a past act that happens to have some ongoing fallout.  In a very real sense, she is still being raped.  Psychologically, maybe the baby is part of that dynamic, and maybe it's not--no one can tell but the victim herself.  But if so:  The baby is, metaphorically, tied to the hood of the Toyota that is careening towards her gate in a scenario that repeats itself once a second, eighty-six thousand seconds a day, for two hundred and eighty days.  It's a horrible thing to have to shoot the baby, but if that's what it takes to stop the Toyota . . . she didn't put the baby there, the rapist did.  

You speak of therapy and medication.  These may work, over time . . . or they may not.  And even if they do, they aren't quick fixes.  If I walk into my house, and my daughter is being actively raped by a guy whose accomplice has a gun to my toddler's head, I don't just pass her a bottle of Ibuprofen and say "here, honey, these might help you feel better in an hour or two, and I'll call you a good therapist to talk to in the morning" and then turn around and walk out.  You do what you have to do* to stop the act that's happening now.  And if my toddler dies in the process . . . I'll be brokenhearted, naturally.  But I'll also sleep soundly in the knowledge that I didn't create that situation; the rapist did.  All I did was to defend my daughter.  


 

 

 

 

*Subject to the whisperings of the Spirit, naturally.

 

Edited by Just_A_Guy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lethal defense against rape is fully justified in my view. Lethal defense against having to feel bad about carrying a child, give birth and then give said child up for adoption....not exactly the same thing. It would be a terrible thing to have to do. I'm not denying that. I am questioning whether that justifies lethal defense. Seems to me like therapy, medication and other means of dealing with the trauma should be the go to. Because, after all, we're talking about killing a baby, not some creepy guy in your living room. You do whatever you need to to preserve that life. It is the priority. Just as you would a born baby. That baby's life comes first. You protect it first. You die first before it does. You face whatever trauma you have to in order to protect it. You deal with those things to protect the innocent.

This is an oversimplified view of a very complex issue. Women who are raped and pregnant aren't just "feeling bad" for carrying a child. As JAG posted "By its nature, it--both the memory of the event, and the simple knowledge that the event occurred--forces itself into the mind of the victim and repeats itself, over and over and over and over again, until she is reduced to a non-functional gibbering wreck; and then it repeats itself some more. Thus, when we see a woman who is pregnant as a result of a rape, I believe it is wrong to see her purely as a victim of a past act that happens to have some ongoing fallout.  In a very real sense, she is still being raped.  Psychologically, maybe the baby is part of that dynamic, and maybe it's not--no one can tell but the victim herself. "

Some women can cope with this horrific situation, give birth and give up the baby for adoption or even raise the child as their own. Other women cannot.

From a psychological point of view, you're endangering this woman's life but also the baby she's carrying.  It can lead to serious consequences (and depending on the severity of the trauma) it can cause the woman to attempt suicide or harm her unborn child.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

"All"?  Probably not.  A few?  Shucks, we do that already.  How many children has our country killed in drone strikes on terrorist commanders in the past ten years?  If you can take out Hitler, but there's five kids in the bunker too--do you do it?  If you're manning a security gate in Afghanistan and a Toyota drives towards that gate at full speed, and there are three kids tied to the hood . . . do you shoot?  

Right. Still...not exactly apples to apples.

47 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

I think, unfortunately, we can "never say never" in the sorts of scenarios you or I are contriving; we just have to take them one by one and weigh the value of the child's life against the degree of harm actually threatened

I believe I said exactly that.

49 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

If a rape-baby needs to be aborted, it's not because the baby is the demon spawn of an eee-vuhl rapist, and we're gonna show him what's what, and he's going to see I've taken my body back, and yay girl power!!!  It's because the victim's being forced to carry the baby may be, in a very real psychological sense, perpetuating the rape; and there may be no other way to make it stop (more on that below). 

I'm sympathetic to this. I'm only questioning whether it justifies killing an innocent child. I've said it before but I'll repeat. If you could, and of course you can't, but if you could take that baby and put it in your arms, would you still be okay with the theoretical killing? I feel like that gets lost in these conversations.

It's either a baby or it isn't. If it is, then it IS...the same as the babe in arms. If that can be acknowledged then...let me rephrase actually...that must be acknowledged alongside the acknowledgement that an unborn baby is a baby. And if that isn't acknowledged then go ahead and cut out the tumor. If it's a baby...it's a baby. And when and if one can justify killing a born baby that's in one's arms, then one can justify an abortion. They are no different if they are both babies.

I am not claiming that there are no legitimate reasons to kill a baby. I am claiming that it must be considered in that light, not as if it is something else entirely. The entire argument of abortion (including rape) is that it is or is not a baby. That's it. Period. There are no other legitimate arguments for or against it. It either is a baby, in which case killing it must come with the same severity of moral understanding as taking a living child and cutting its throat, or it is not. It cannot be treated differently. Now debate can be had over when it becomes a baby. And that's a different matter. You've suggested yourself that, perhaps, the spirit doesn't arrive upon conception. I don't buy that thinking, per se...but it's an argument. But if one, generally, takes the view that a conceived child counts as a baby, I just cannot see treating it any differently.

59 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

I submit that rape is particularly heinous (and indeed, warrants death to the perpetrator) because, by its nature, it is not just a "one-and-done" type of act.  By its nature, it--both the memory of the event, and the simple knowledge that the event occurred--forces itself into the mind of the victim and repeats itself, over and over and over and over again, until she is reduced to a non-functional gibbering wreck; and then it repeats itself some more.  Post-hoc "feeling bad" about being a victim of such an act is not just an unfortunate, incidental side-effect; it's part-and-parcel of what makes rape rape and it’s the reason decent red-blooded men want to wring the necks of the rat-bastages who commit it.

I agree. But I'll submit two questions for your consideration. 1. Is all "rape" is equal? (Applicable to the reality of legalizing abortion in cases of rape.) 2. Even in the worst form you speak of (jumped in an alley by a Freddy Krueger type or the like...), why is murdering the innocent child the only option? And why is that child's life always to be viewed as of less value than the woman's?

Why don't we put the woman into a coma or something for 9 months if she can't handle it? Oh....I remember...she has those things we call human rights. Inalienable, if I recall. But the baby...none. No rights. Right? Why? Why doesn't the baby have the same rights in this rape scenario discussion?

1 hour ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Thus, when we see a woman who is pregnant as a result of a rape, I believe it is wrong to see her purely as a victim of a past act that happens to have some ongoing fallout.

This is not what I meant to suggest, or what I believe.

1 hour ago, Just_A_Guy said:

If I walk into my house, and my daughter is being actively raped by a guy whose accomplice has a gun to my toddler's head, I don't just pass her a bottle of Ibuprofen and say "here, honey, these might help you feel better in an hour or two, and I'll call you a good therapist to talk to in the morning" and then turn around and walk out.

Do you believe this idea of "just giving her an ibuprofen" even remotely approaches what I'm saying? It strikes me as uselessly flippant, and doesn't even begin to approximate the point I'm trying to convey.

I think you actually know that...so I'll put it to a communication faux pas on your part. I'm sure I've had several myself, as is my way.

1 hour ago, Just_A_Guy said:

You do what you have to do* to stop the act that's happening now.  And if my toddler dies in the process .

Say, for the sake of getting closer to the idea, the guy with the gun gave you the option of letting the rape continue or shooting your own toddler in the head (pretend there's enough bad-guys to control the situation and they gave you a gun with one bullet or something... (yes, creating reasonable representative situations is practically impossible..but....)) Would you shoot your toddler in the head to stop the rape?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Honest question here. If a woman was raped, why in the world would she not go out and take a plan B pill at the soonest opportunity? They are readily available and not expensive. I would recommend it even if it was near the end of her cycle and chance of pregnancy was slim to none. Far better to prevent an unwanted pregnancy then to end an actual life several months later.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Suzie said:

Women who are raped and pregnant aren't just "feeling bad"

Suzie, I honestly cannot tell if you're being disingenuous or inattentive to everything I've actually written on the matter here. Did you read everything that I've written in the thread? And if you did are you intentionally cherry picking that, admittedly poor, phrase? Do you really believe that I think raped women "just" have the blues and they should just get over it or something?

I really don't want to get into fights and have excessive contention. I'd leave the forum again first. But, I mean...seriously...do you honestly believe that of...well.....anyone who isn't severely mentally and emotionally stunted? If you really believe that of me it's hard to want to actually join with you in conversation on the matter. Do you think so little of me? That I'm really that big of a terrible, callous pig? It's incredibly frustrating to have someone be so passively aggressively rude as to imply I'm that obtuse and cold blooded about rape.

I don't know how to respond other than this bluntly. I won't pursue debate and contention with you further on it. I really don't want contention. I considered not responding at all. Maybe I shouldn't have. But I hope that you can make an effort to actually understand me, and I can make an effort as well to actually understand you -- which I do, I might add. I am not, in any way, adamant that women should be legally forced to carry a baby from a rape...I am discussing principles and ideas that are very difficult, and I do understand that. Extremely difficult. It would be nice to have any acknowledgement from someone joining in on the conversation that they even remotely understood my point of view on the matter instead of exaggerating a single moment of poor wording to imply I'm nothing more than a chauvinistic jerk whose opinions, accordingly, are not worth consideration.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:

[1] I'm sympathetic to this. I'm only questioning whether it justifies killing an innocent child. I've said it before but I'll repeat. If you could, and of course you can't, but if you could take that baby and put it in your arms, would you still be okay with the theoretical killing? I feel like that gets lost in these conversations.

It's either a baby or it isn't. If it is, then it IS...the same as the babe in arms. If that can be acknowledged then...let me rephrase actually...that must be acknowledged alongside the acknowledgement that an unborn baby is a baby. And if that isn't acknowledged then go ahead and cut out the tumor. If it's a baby...it's a baby. And when and if one can justify killing a born baby that's in one's arms, then one can justify an abortion. They are no different if they are both babies.

I am not claiming that there are no legitimate reasons to kill a baby. I am claiming that it must be considered in that light, not as if it is something else entirely. The entire argument of abortion (including rape) is that it is or is not a baby. That's it. Period. There are no other legitimate arguments for or against it. It either is a baby, in which case killing it must come with the same severity of moral understanding as taking a living child and cutting its throat, or it is not. It cannot be treated differently. Now debate can be had over when it becomes a baby. And that's a different matter. You've suggested yourself that, perhaps, the spirit doesn't arrive upon conception. I don't buy that thinking, per se...but it's an argument. But if one, generally, takes the view that a conceived child counts as a baby, I just cannot see treating it any differently.

[2] I agree. But I'll submit two questions for your consideration. 1. [a] Is all "rape" is equal? (Applicable to the reality of legalizing abortion in cases of rape.) 2. Even in the worst form you speak of (jumped in an alley by a Freddy Krueger type or the like...), [ b ] why is murdering the innocent child the only option? [c] And why is that child's life always to be viewed as of less value than the woman's?

Why don't we put the woman into a coma or something for 9 months if she can't handle it? Oh....I remember...she has those things we call human rights. Inalienable, if I recall. But the baby...none. No rights. Right? Why? Why doesn't the baby have the same rights in this rape scenario discussion?

[3]Do you believe this idea of "just giving her an ibuprofen" even remotely approaches what I'm saying? It strikes me as uselessly flippant, and doesn't even begin to approximate the point I'm trying to convey.

I think you actually know that...so I'll put it to a communication faux pas on your part. I'm sure I've had several myself, as is my way.

[4]Say, for the sake of getting closer to the idea, the guy with the gun gave you the option of letting the rape continue or shooting your own toddler in the head (pretend there's enough bad-guys to control the situation and they gave you a gun with one bullet or something... (yes, creating reasonable representative situations is practically impossible..but....)) Would you shoot your toddler in the head to stop the rape?

1.  To be clear, I am conceding arguendo that the baby is just that--a full-fledged baby.  I'm not sure to what degree I believe that that's true in the first few weeks after conception, but I'm happy to "steel-man" the argument.  I'd rather wrongfully describe it as life, than wrongfully describe it as not life.  

The trouble with asking if the situation changes if we're holding the baby, out-of-utero, in our arms; is that the fact that it's no longer in the mother means it's no longer causing that psychological trauma--the victim isn't pregnant, she's not feeling symptoms (or the death of the baby will no longer alleviate the symptoms), she's no longer required to be in the perpetual presence of the baby.  And of course you don't kill a human who isn't a threat to you.  

2.  a)  Is all "rape" equal?  Hoo, boy; you're gonna get me in trouble with this one! . . .  Theoretically, I suppose objectively there are particular uniquely traumatic occurrences that are present in some rapes but not others.   That said, as a guy and as a non-rape-victim, am I going to get into the business of telling a rape victim just how psychologically damaging she ought to deem her experience to be?  Heck no!  

b) It's not always the only option.  But in some cases, where the child's presence in utero, combined with the ongoing symptoms of pregnancy, cause ongoing psychological damage, there may not be an immediate remedy to the ongoing psychological rape that is occurring.  

c)  Because , whether one is a baby or an adult, no person's natural rights include having one's own material needs met through the compulsory involuntary servitude of others.*  (That's why you and I both oppose nationalized health care and are suspicious of government welfare programs, no?)  Scarlett O'Hara may be starving and about to lose Tara, but she doesn't get to put her former servants back into chains and make them work the farm for her own support.  Now, if they choose to keep working on her behalf, then their compassion is certainly laudable.  But ultimately they owe her nothing; theirs is the right to walk away, even if it means Scarlett dies.

By contrast, the right to self-defense and to use lethal force, not only against a person posing a threat of likely death or physical trauma, but against a person posing a threat of likely severe emotional trauma (and even if the threatening person's mental state renders them incapable of forming any actual malicious intent) is well established.  

Put another way, it seems you're trying to assert a positive right of the child against a negative right of the mother; and I think that when they cannot otherwise be reconciled, negative rights will generally trump positive rights.

*One could argue that family relationships constitute just such a relationship; but these are consensually entered by the burdened parties, even if the parties may occasionally regret their choices thereafter.  

3.  Frankly, yeah; I kind of did think it approached what you were saying; and it didn't sound like you.  But I understood you as suggesting therapy and meds, while insisting that the situation ought to be permitted to persist until such time as the therapy and meds might actually begin to dull the pain (if ever they do).  I'm glad to hear that I misinterpreted, and I'd love to hear a little more about what you actually had in mind.  :)

4.  Frankly--I don't know.  But--and here's where the rubber hits the road for policy discussions like this--I am darned sure that I wouldn't seek to impoverish or imprison a dad who did. 

2 hours ago, scottyg said:

Honest question here. If a woman was raped, why in the world would she not go out and take a plan B pill at the soonest opportunity? They are readily available and not expensive. I would recommend it even if it was near the end of her cycle and chance of pregnancy was slim to none. Far better to prevent an unwanted pregnancy then to end an actual life several months later.

But if we believe that life begins at conception, do we really want to create a regimen where abortion is the default option?  I've spilled a lot of virtual ink here in defending a rape victim's right to abort--but I would always hope she could find it within herself to deliver the baby.  

Edited by Just_A_Guy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

3.  Frankly, yeah; I kind of did think it approached what you were saying; and it didn't sound like you.  But I understood you as suggesting therapy and meds, while insisting that the situation ought to be permitted to persist until such time as the therapy and meds might actually begin to dull the pain (if ever they do).  I'm glad to hear that I misinterpreted, and I'd love to hear a little more about what you actually had in mind.  :)

I'll probably address your post point by point better tomorrow (Maybe. Part of me feel like we might be going in circles here to no avail.) But I thought I'd at least address this now.

So of all the legitimate medications developed to help people through serious trauma, you went with ibuprofen and you're claiming that was what you really thought I meant?

That being said, I have no real expertise to explain exactly what medication or therapy I have in mind other than a general theory. I am simply saying the exploration of said idea ought to be serious and thorough before one determines that killing a baby is justified. And I don't think blowing it off as, "so you're suggesting giving her an ibuprofen" is a fair or reasonable response to that. Not to mention the same sort of theoretical offensiveness that I jumped down Suzie's throat for.

I am talking about sanctity for the life for the purely innocent and doing all that we can, even in our theoretical approach to discussion, to put that forward as an extremely high priority, and I'm being treated like I could care less about rape? "Well heck, just give 'em an ibuprofen then and they'll be fine!" I did not say that. I do not think that.

Edited by The Folk Prophet

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/2/2021 at 2:34 PM, Just_A_Guy said:

My understanding, further, is that the law does not include exceptions for victims of rape or incest.

Although the Church allows for the possibility of personal revelation for certain scenarios.  Given the terrible things Heavenly Father 'allows' to happen all over the world because of our individual agency, I can't personally imagine a situation where someone would get a confirming revelation to abort a child solely on the basis of rape or incest.  Without that personal revelation, it would still be a gravely sinful act by the Church's standards noted in the handbook, although I can't imagine any discipline would take place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, person0 said:

I can't personally imagine a situation where someone would get a confirming revelation to abort a child solely on the basis of rape or incest.

I know this group tends to disdain the more liberal and progressive sides of the Church, but, if you look over there, you will find anecdotes of people claiming to have received such revelations. Perhaps I have no moral backbone, but I have no desire to try to decide which of these revelations was legitimate and which were not. I certainly don't want the state charged with adjudicating what constitutes "genuine" revelation.

I believe that abortion is a morally significant issue, but I don't know how to craft legislation that adequately addresses the moral issue (recognizing that the Tx law is probably more about political messaging/posturing and not really about wrestling with the moral ambiguities) with it's gray areas. I find myself preferring to leave government out of the difficult decisions and leave those decisions up to individuals. Sure, that means that some people will abuse the privilege, but that seems preferable to me to having the state be placed in a position of choosing for people how to make morally ambiguous decisions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

The trouble with asking if the situation changes if we're holding the baby, out-of-utero, in our arms; is that the fact that it's no longer in the mother means it's no longer causing that psychological trauma--the victim isn't pregnant, she's not feeling symptoms (or the death of the baby will no longer alleviate the symptoms), she's no longer required to be in the perpetual presence of the baby.  And of course you don't kill a human who isn't a threat to you.  

Yes. It's practically impossible to make a comparison. The point I'm getting at is that people see the baby as they would a babe in arms instead of an out-of-sight out-of-compassion range point of view. I am not accusing you of no compassion, of course. But I do think it it somewhat easier to take a more clinical approach accordingly, that may or may not be fair. I'm not saying a clinical approach isn't correct (more on that later)... I am saying that the same clinical approach would need to be taken with born children (if somehow a perfect analogous situation could be invented), and I suspect that if such an analogy were possible, that many a people would change their tunes.

Quote

2.  a)  Is all "rape" equal?  Hoo, boy; you're gonna get me in trouble with this one! . . .  Theoretically, I suppose objectively there are particular uniquely traumatic occurrences that are present in some rapes but not others.   That said, as a guy and as a non-rape-victim, am I going to get into the business of telling a rape victim just how psychologically damaging she ought to deem her experience to be?  Heck no!  

Of course not all rape is equal. Why? All people are not equal. Some rape is the straight up demon jumping the innocent in an alleyway. Some rape is the promiscuous girl changing their mind at the last minute in a moment of passion. Both are rape and both are terrible. But it is reasonable that the resultant PTSD of different situations is not going to be like to like. But, really, that's not even the point. The point would be that even in the demon jumping the innocent cases, not all women are the same. Theoretically, some couldn't handle the reality of that situation, and some could. In point of fact, one person who is raped by the demon in the alleyway may handle it fairly well, and another who engages in consensual sex but then decides they made a mistake, felt pressured into it by this or that thing, etc., might psychologically fall apart. Is the psychologically falling apart really the standard by which we legalize something or not?

Now I know you've said that you aren't going to get into the business of telling people how they should handle things psychologically, but I think there's a flawed premise there. Morality is exactly that. By carving out an legal exception in any given law, one is, in fact, doing just that. And I think in the case of the last example, we are absolutely justified in expecting someone to not kill their baby despite how traumatized they feel.

But more on this later.

Quote

b) It's not always the only option.  But in some cases, where the child's presence in utero, combined with the ongoing symptoms of pregnancy, cause ongoing psychological damage, there may not be an immediate remedy to the ongoing psychological rape that is occurring.  

Obviously this sort of thing is sensitive and difficult to talk about clinically (but for some reason the clinical side of destroying the baby isn't...there's a century of sociology and normalization and agenda behind that combined with the out-of-sight thing I mentioned before). But we absolutely must talk about it clinically, coldly, and statistically rather than having the discussion based on anecdotal reports of feelings, no matter how severe.

Why?

Because feelings aren't an accurate metric for anything, ever.

Why?

Because people don't speak the truth as it really is. Ever. They can't, even if they mean to. And they often don't mean to.

Moreover, feelings can be changed, overcome, dealt with. etc. We, by the very nature of our agency, are not slaves to our feelings. If we were, then all sorts of murder becomes immediately justifiable. He just hated that guy SO badly that he couldn't control himself. Etc. It was either kill that guy or kill himself. He had no choice. But even if feelings can't be changed, we all know that no matter how psychologically driven Jeffrey Dahmer was, no matter how abused he was, no matter how much his daddy beat him and his mommy didn't love him, no matter what brain trauma he had from being dropped on his head, we don't justify his killing others because of that. (And, yes, I'm fully aware that the people Jeffrey Dahmer killed, even if reminding him of the terrible things that happened to him, wasn't a situation where he was forced, per se, to permanently interact with them. Though one could argue that psychologically maybe he was forced. But it's not perfect, of course. There are no perfect analogues. I hope you get my point nonetheless.)

Quote

c)  Because , whether one is a baby or an adult, no person's natural rights include having one's own material needs met through the compulsory involuntary servitude of others.

We demand the compulsory involuntary servitude of others so that we may save lives all the time. Indeed, we demand the compulsory giving of life to save lives all the time.

Quote

Put another way, it seems you're trying to assert a positive right of the child against a negative right of the mother; and I think that when they cannot otherwise be reconciled, negative rights will generally trump positive rights.

Negative or positive rights trumping one another is really going to be relative to the nature of the severity of the right being breached, don't you think?

In other words, to make this argument one has to prove (and anecdotal reporting is not proof) that the suffering caused by the negative right is severe enough to justify the removal of the positive right of living.

Once again...more on this later.

Quote

3.  Frankly, yeah; I kind of did think it approached what you were saying; and it didn't sound like you.  But I understood you as suggesting therapy and meds, while insisting that the situation ought to be permitted to persist until such time as the therapy and meds might actually begin to dull the pain (if ever they do).  I'm glad to hear that I misinterpreted, and I'd love to hear a little more about what you actually had in mind.  :)

But this sort of sentiment is akin to my implying, "Clearly you don't love babies as much as I do." Let's say, just for the sake of argument, and putting offense aside (and I should clarify, I'm not offended. But that is a different issue than whether a statement is offensive or not), that that was true -- meaning you didn't love babies as much as I do -- just as an example. Does that have any bearing on the issue at all?

Yes, it's an offensive idea to imply that someone doesn't love babies or doesn't care about women in such a discussion. But it's also argumentum ad misericordiam.

Okay...here's the more later stuff:

Let's say there are 100 women that have been raped and impregnated. 100 out of 100 express that they cannot handle it. If you force them to anyway, what percentage actually does handle it? And to be clear, when I say "handle it" I mean even barely. Maybe psychological scarring. A lot of struggle and crying and hurt and sleepless nights, night terrors, even suicidal thoughts (but not action) and etc., etc. But they handle it to the point where it's worth not taking the life of someone innocent. Yes...what counts as "handling it" is a hard call to make. I think it's incumbent upon us to try when the alternative means the death of an innocent.

People are forced to go through terrible, terrible things all the time. And the idea of facing many of those terrible things is practically unthinkable. And a great many people feel that they could not handle many of these terrible things. But when things happen, war comes, the devil's at the door, etc., they do. Keep in mind, once again, I'm talking cold statistics. Because we must for this sort of thing. Most people handle trauma much better than they think they're going to be able to.

So let's say, talking statistically, it's 99 of a 100 that "handle it". But 1 doesn't and takes her own life and the life of the baby. Was the 99 saved worth it then?

Mathematically one might argue that 50% is the point where the cold statistic justifies it I suppose. Maybe not. These are difficult things. But they cannot be judged off expressions of emotion, no matter how extreme those expressions are. They have to be statistical and cold and calculated. If they aren't, they will be manipulated, both intentionally and unintentionally. But they will be. And this manipulation will lead to the unnecessary loss of innocent life.

Add to the mix extreme medical and therapeutic intervention. Maybe, for example, let the raped pregnant women commit themselves, put her on suicide watch, give her appropriate medications as needed with careful monitoring. Give her all the resources she needs, daily therapy, constant companionship, etc., etc. Is that going to be sufficient for all women? No. Would it improve the statistical percentage of those who get through the matter? Perhaps. Does it move from the theoretically 50% to 30%? And is 30% worth saving the other 66 babies' lives? Those are difficult calls, of course...but they are calls that have to be made in the case of the sanctity of life. We make those calls in war. How many dead soldiers is this worth? It's cold and calculating. It has to be. But the judgment has to be made. Instead we're taking the destruction of life in the case of rape and abortion and throwing up our arms in surrender because of anecdotally reported feelings of suffering. 

It's understood that soldiers face both the trauma of war, death, and destruction and then the PTSD in order to save statistical life. And this is worth the cost because of what is saved by paying it. Perhaps a similar calculating view is in order in the case of abortion in these situations.

But the cold, calculated, statistically driven model of handling these things is driven by the compassion we feel because it is such a terribly difficult thing on both sides. When we move the debate to, "Think of the children!" or "Think of the women!" then we're just caterwauling at one another. We have to put the compassion aside, nonetheless understanding that it is the driving motivator, and look at the strict cost/benefit nature of the matter.

Edited by The Folk Prophet

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:

I'll probably address your post point by point better tomorrow (Maybe. Part of me feel like we might be going in circles here to no avail.) But I thought I'd at least address this now.

So of all the legitimate medications developed to help people through serious trauma, you went with ibuprofen and you're claiming that was what you really thought I meant?

That being said, I'm have no real expertise to explain exactly what medication or therapy I have in mind other than a general theory. I am simply saying the exploration of said idea ought to be serious and thorough before one determines that killing a baby is justified. And I don't think blowing it off as, "so you're suggesting giving her an ibuprofen" is a fair or reasonable response to that. Not to mention the same sort of theoretical offensiveness that I jumped down Suzie's throat for.

I am talking about sanctity for the life for the purely innocent and doing all that we can, even in our theoretical approach to discussion, to put that forward as an extremely high priority, and I'm being treated like I could care less about rape? "Well heck, just give 'em an ibuprofen then and they'll be fine!" I did not say that. I do not think that.

Part of what elicited my response in this regard, is that I don’t think there are available medications that can predictably nullify the pain of flashbacks/PTSD on an as-needed basis.  I could easily be wrong; but I think the nearest medications that might fit the bill are antidepressants (which have their own set of issues and I believe are more designed to deal with chronic mood issues, not acute trauma symptoms) and Ecstasy (which has shown promise when used in therapy sessions to help people work through their trauma while having a sense of detachment about it, but AFAIK isn’t available for home use even with a prescription).  So when you spoke of medication, I assumed you meant medication to address the physical pain, not the psychological pain.  Hence, the crack about Ibuprofen.  Perhaps I should have said “Prozac”.  But this is all sort of a diversion from my primary point; which is that the days and weeks and months after the event a rape victim is still being raped, and it’s a heckuva thing to tell her that she’s not allowed to take certain steps to make the process stop just because the rapist has essentially created a hostage-type scenario.

I have some chores to do this AM but will try to reply to your other post later today.  

Edited by Just_A_Guy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Just_A_Guy said:

Part of what elicited my response in this regard, is that I don’t think there are available medications that can predictably nullify the pain of flashbacks/PTSD on an as-needed basis.  I could easily be wrong; but I think the nearest medications that might fit the bill are antidepressants (which have their own set of issues and I believe are more designed to deal with chronic mood issues, not acute trauma symptoms) and Ecstasy (which has shown promise when used in therapy sessions to help people work through their trauma while having a sense of detachment about it, but AFAIK isn’t available for home use even with a prescription).  So when you spoke of medication, I assumed you meant medication to address the physical pain, not the psychological pain.  

See my longer post. "Nullify" may not be the appropriate goalpost. And maybe "home-use" is too casual a response when considering taking an innocent person's life as the alternative.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, MrShorty said:

I know this group tends to disdain the more liberal and progressive sides of the Church

Perhaps that is because the more "liberal" and "progressive" sides of the Church are neither liberal nor progressive.

2 hours ago, MrShorty said:

but, if you look over there, you will find anecdotes of people claiming to have received such revelations.

I might find such "revelations" more convincing if those who reported them were no so often the same people who clamor for the Church's leaders to receive "revelation" that their pet perversion, e.g. homosexual "marriage", is approved of God, making prayer for divine revelation more or less like ordering your favorite hamburger from McDonald's. It is telling that such people seem never to receive revelation from God to avoid abortion, eschew homosexuality, or anything else that goes against their wants. All of their so-called revelations are easy and convenient (for them).

I know nominal Church members who are very unorthodox and in some cases unbelieving, yet who, I am convinced, have received authentic revelation. It baffles them to know by revelation that X is true, despite their deep desire to believe Not X. It's a challenge for them. But such people are at least honest enough to accept the divine revelation on its own terms (insofar as they can) and not pervert it into some twisted thing to justify their own prejudices.

2 hours ago, MrShorty said:

Perhaps I have no moral backbone, but I have no desire to try to decide which of these revelations was legitimate and which were not. I certainly don't want the state charged with adjudicating what constitutes "genuine" revelation.

It takes little moral backbone beyond basic integrity to recognize spurious and self-serving "revelation" that flies in the face of clear gospel teachings.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Suzie, I honestly cannot tell if you're being disingenuous or inattentive to everything I've actually written on the matter here. Did you read everything that I've written in the thread? And if you did are you intentionally cherry picking that, admittedly poor, phrase? Do you really believe that I think raped women "just" have the blues and they should just get over it or something?

I really don't want to get into fights and have excessive contention. I'd leave the forum again first. But, I mean...seriously...do you honestly believe that of...well.....anyone who isn't severely mentally and emotionally stunted? If you really believe that of me it's hard to want to actually join with you in conversation on the matter. Do you think so little of me? That I'm really that big of a terrible, callous pig? It's incredibly frustrating to have someone be so passively aggressively rude as to imply I'm that obtuse and cold blooded about rape.

I don't know how to respond other than this bluntly. I won't pursue debate and contention with you further on it. I really don't want contention. I considered not responding at all. Maybe I shouldn't have. But I hope that you can make an effort to actually understand me, and I can make an effort as well to actually understand you -- which I do, I might add. I am not, in any way, adamant that women should be legally forced to carry a baby from a rape...I am discussing principles and ideas that are very difficult, and I do understand that. Extremely difficult. It would be nice to have any acknowledgement from someone joining in on the conversation that they even remotely understood my point of view on the matter instead of exaggerating a single moment of poor wording to imply I'm nothing more than a chauvinistic jerk whose opinions, accordingly, are not worth consideration.

@The Folk ProphetHonestly, I'm surprised by your response. I re-read my post several times to see where I have given you the impression of being disingenuous, intentionally cherry picking or what is worse, think that I could consider you a "terrible, callous pig". Those are very strong words. We don't know each other and even though we might disagree in our discussions here,  I would never think of you (my brother in Christ) in this manner (or anyone else for that matter). I don't appreciate you calling me passively aggressively rude when I wasn't, honestly I think you need to calm down a bit. I have done nothing to deserve this response other than offer my respectful opinion. Having said that, I wish you all the best.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/3/2021 at 4:59 PM, Just_A_Guy said:

Ok, thanks for clarifying.  :) 

Barring abortion for rape cases, of course, creates collateral damage too.  In that vein one might ask in return how you would protect a bona fide rape victim from being forced to re-live her experience dozens (hundreds?) of times per day, every day for nine months, by having to keep a tangible and growing and increasingly-physically-painful reminder of that rape, inside her body?

Naturally, there are no perfect solutions here either way.  The best balance I can think of is requiring a police report, including a statement signed under penalty of perjury.  Frankly, regardless of abortion restrictions, in today’s society men already know that any sexual interaction with a woman subjects them to a possible false allegation of rape.  At a certain point the risk of a false accusation, like the risk of pregnancy itself, is just a cost of doing business; and if people don’t like the cost—they shouldn’t do the business.  I would also note that most of those young men want these babies aborted just as much as the mothers do; so I don’t think we need to get excessively worked up over the possibility that noble sons of Zion will be having their good names besmirched by worthless young strumpets here.

But if you feel a nine-month phase-in for a statutory regimen like this is necessary to protect the reputations and legal rights of rakish young cads, I suppose I could get on board with that. ;)

 

I know the discussion has been carrying on, but I wanted to respond if only to show my appreciation of your consideration. I think that given the difficulty of actually taking a rape case to trial the police report is a fair compromise. If a woman is actually raped she needs to report it. If she was not actually raped the report in reality won't actually harm the father (usually) - but it will alert him to the kind of woman he's dating/hooking up with/(or unthinkably, married to). In order to prevent the retroactive rape accusations, I would like the police report filed before the doctor's pregnancy test. Actually, it would need to be reported within a certain window of the rape to prevent the home test->police report->doctor visit timeline, but I'm not familiar enough with rape cases or pregnancy to nail down the window now.

As for the sons of Zion vs the children of Babylon - well, we live in a culture where even respectable couples have sex outside of marriage. Minimize abortion and the risk of pregnancy, parental, and fiscal responsibility return as credible deterrents to casual sex in non-committed relationships. I don't think we'll need to pile the threat of rape accusations on top of that.

I am not unsympathetic to the traumas bona fide rape victims suffer. I do question how we can sort them out. You've described a distinguishing feature of a rape victim (or at least, one who's life should be considered over the infant's) is the level of trauma currently experienced. Frankly, I don't trust those who measure such things to do so in a way that also considers the infant's interests. As a social science, psychology is filled with practitioners who correlate with pro-choicers. Will they share with their patients the traumas of abortion when weighing the decision? The APA has shown that they are willing to change diagnoses based on political consensus and not hard data. Will abortion become the de facto psychological treatment for rape?

Let's add it to the sex ed curriculum. If you are raped report it right away. If you get pregnant from that encounter you'll need that report for an abortion. If you are having consensual sex, use the tools we've been teaching for 50 years or accept the risk. If you wait until marriage, you'll be eligible for a temple recommend. (huh, they left that last part out in my classes).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Suzie said:

Suzie, I honestly cannot tell if you're being disingenuous or inattentive to everything I've actually written on the matter here. Did you read everything that I've written in the thread? And if you did are you intentionally cherry picking that, admittedly poor, phrase? Do you really believe that I think raped women "just" have the blues and they should just get over it or something?

I really don't want to get into fights and have excessive contention. I'd leave the forum again first. But, I mean...seriously...do you honestly believe that of...well.....anyone who isn't severely mentally and emotionally stunted? If you really believe that of me it's hard to want to actually join with you in conversation on the matter. Do you think so little of me? That I'm really that big of a terrible, callous pig? It's incredibly frustrating to have someone be so passively aggressively rude as to imply I'm that obtuse and cold blooded about rape.

I don't know how to respond other than this bluntly. I won't pursue debate and contention with you further on it. I really don't want contention. I considered not responding at all. Maybe I shouldn't have. But I hope that you can make an effort to actually understand me, and I can make an effort as well to actually understand you -- which I do, I might add. I am not, in any way, adamant that women should be legally forced to carry a baby from a rape...I am discussing principles and ideas that are very difficult, and I do understand that. Extremely difficult. It would be nice to have any acknowledgement from someone joining in on the conversation that they even remotely understood my point of view on the matter instead of exaggerating a single moment of poor wording to imply I'm nothing more than a chauvinistic jerk whose opinions, accordingly, are not worth consideration.

@The Folk ProphetHonestly, I'm surprised by your response. I re-read my post several times to see where I have given you the impression of being disingenuous, intentionally cherry picking or what is worse, think that I could consider you a "terrible, callous pig". Those are very strong words. We don't know each other and even though we might disagree in our discussions here,  I would never think of you (my brother in Christ) in this manner (or anyone else for that matter). I don't appreciate you calling me passively aggressively rude when I wasn't, honestly I think you need to calm down a bit. I have done nothing to deserve this response other than offer my respectful opinion. Having said that, I wish you all the best.

You cannot see that suggesting I'm saying rape victims are "just feeling bad" (you added the word just) would come across as passive aggressive and rude per the explanation I gave? Particularly when you literally ignored the next sentence where I explicitly clarified, "It would be a terrible thing to have to do. I'm not denying that"? You don't understand why I felt you were, perhaps, cherry picking when you entirely disregard that part of what I said, and several other similar statements?

Maybe you just hadn't read everything I'd written. Fine. If you didn't read it all then that's the root of the problem here. But what you said was passive aggressive and rude, whether you meant it or not because it did, indeed, imply I was a terrible, callous pig who didn't see the trauma of rape as anything worse than having the blues, whether you explicitly called me that sort of thing or not. That's the passive part of passive aggressive. And so, by the way, is telling me to calm down. You're implying the problem's with me when you have clearly misrepresented what I have been discussing. If you misrepresented it accidentally own up to it. But you did misrepresent what I'm saying -- badly -- calling it oversimplified and treating me like I don't understand the trauma of rape. My views on this matter are hardly simple. Anyone should be able to easily recognize that reality.

For the sake of fairness, I felt Just_a_Guy also misrepresented what I was saying in one instance too because of a similar misunderstanding (perhaps you saw the exchange over ibuprofen). When I called him on it we actually discussed the issue back and forth until we clarified what was being meant. So I'm certainly not singling you out. But he didn't tell me to calm down, tell me that he didn't appreciate it, or use other blatant passive aggressive phrasing when explaining himself. You may not be able to see that such things are passive aggressive Ad Hominem, but they are, nonetheless. Sure, we can't all be JaG with his suave and calm communication style. I'm passive aggressive all the time. I use Ad Hominem. I misspeak. I'm a mortal with mortal weaknesses. I accept that you didn't mean to be rude. Heck, I accidentally did the exact same thing to @estradling75 the other day. I didn't meant to say something rude to him, but he took it as rude. So I understand that this sort of thing can happen.

What you suggested about my view, intentionally or not, is an offensive idea, but I'm not offended, and I certainly don't need to calm down. I am entirely calm. But when someone is using an offensive suggestion to push a point of argument that isn't actually related to what I'm trying to say (in other words, my sympathy or understanding of rape victims' trauma is irrelevant to the point being made), then I'm going to call them out on that. You're attacking a slightly misspoken phrase. I said, "feel bad". I should have said, "feel beyond tortured" or...I don't know for sure. Some word that encompasses the horror of rape better. Maybe it can't be encapsulated in a single word. In context, what I was saying should be pretty clear though. Should be. Unless someone didn't bother to read or even try to understand all I've written on it.

Edited by The Folk Prophet

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@The Folk Prophet I think my last message was very clear, that's all I have to say about it. Your response indicates to me that this conversation will lead to nothing but contention and we know who is the father of it, right? I think it is best that we don't interact with each other here (I believe there are features on this forum for this). I come to this forum to have civil, peaceful and respectful discussions, not for this. This is going to be my last reply to this issue. All the best.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Suzie said:

@The Folk Prophet I think my last message was very clear, that's all I have to say about it. Your response indicates to me that this conversation will lead to nothing but contention and we know who is the father of it, right? I think it is best that we don't interact with each other here (I believe there are features on this forum for this). I come to this forum to have civil, peaceful and respectful discussions, not for this. This is going to be my last reply to this issue. All the best.

Edit:  @Suzie, I have reconsidered my culpability in this. So I'm removing my post here and I'll say more below.

Edited by The Folk Prophet

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Suzie, I am sorry.

I think I have some historical hang-ups with you because of some of your progressive leaning views on things and, additionally, I think your communication style might not resonate with me or something. I mean, I don't even know...it's hard to put into words beyond the fact that if I'm legitimately honest with myself, I have to admit that I respond viscerally to your comments in a more defensive way than I would with others.

That is not your fault, despite all my implications. I don't know that I shouldn't have explained that I felt your post was implying something unfair, but I absolutely, most certainly could have said it with a LOT more understanding, love, and forgiveness. Instead I was snarky and biting in my response. And then I doubled down on it with more snark and biting remarks, even though I said in my first post I wasn't going to say more. But I kept at it anyhow. I apologize, truly and deeply for all of that.

Look, if you really don't want to interact with me moving forward that is fair. But I promise you that if you do in the future I will do better. I understand you might have blocked me already and may never see this.

But I am really sorry. Please forgive me.

Edited by The Folk Prophet

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@The Folk Prophet I really appreciate your response. :) Thought about you yesterday and I hope we can leave all of this behind. About my progressive leaning views...lol you know what? It's not THAT liberal. ;) Copying and pasting from another thread:

😂 You guys call me "liberal" or "progressive" (a term I use often to describe my views) BUT I don't think they fit into any particular "box". For example: I believe in legal immigration and at the same time I can empathize with those who are fleeing certain countries. But not to the point where they now jump the line and leave behind those people who have been patiently waiting for years. I believe in fairness, the system is a mess and  people shouldn't be waiting for decades to be reunited with family.

Then, racism. I don't believe when people say minorities use the "race card" for everything. This isn't always the case,  there are genuine cases of racism taking place daily and cannot and should not be ignored or automatically categorized as using the "race card".  Also, people assume too many things when they see someone from another ethnicity or culture , they automatically assume the person is illegal, uneducated,  they can't speak English or they are on welfare. This mindset cannot be right and I blame this to ignorance, particularly lack of exposure and traveling. The most "exotic" places  people go is Hawaii! Real exposure to people of other cultures and races is needed to stop prejudice.

What happened to George Floyd was horrible and yet some people chose to talk about his character rather than what was done to him and this isn't good. When the Black Lives Matter movement started, I understood the reason why because no one wanted a repeat of the 50's and 60's but things got out of control rather quickly, destroying property, hurting others, etc to the point of profiting from this and certain individuals becoming millionaires practically overnight. 

I also don't agree with the extent in which we engage in political correctness. It feels as though there is a new term we all have to be careful to use. I cannot keep up with them and I find myself having to explain what I mean when I'm not inclined to do so. And yet at the same time, I deeply believe in respecting every individual and I truly care how they feel and I don't wish to purposely offend anyone. I am just concerned with people losing their jobs or being accused of things they didn't mean. And don' get me started with cultural appropriation...GOOD CULTURE IS MEANT TO BE APPROPRIATED! Unless we are segregationists."

Nothing to forgive, I apologize if I offended you in any way. Have a great Sabbath.

Suzie.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this